compliance with the Articles of the Organic Law of the Judiciary Board (Arts. 37-39) and the Law on Careers in the Judiciary (Arts. 38-40). The State notes that the possible punishments range from a warning and suspension without pay to dismissal. The unlawful conduct subject to disciplinary action that the petitioners committed is established in Article 40(4) of the Law on Careers in the Judiciary and is punishable by dismissal. 26. The State maintains that in the process dismissal of the petitioners, all the provisions established by law were scrupulously observed. It noted that when the Commission on Judicial System Operations and Restructuring handed down its decision, the petitioners could have availed themselves of an administrative appeal for reconsideration before the same Commission and/or could have disputed the administrative decision before PoliticalAdministrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, and that the petitioners did indeed file these appeals in due course. 27. The State refutes the petitioners allegations that their political rights were violated on grounds that it considers these claims to be unfounded. 28. Regarding the petitioners’ arguments on the preferential treatment of Mrs. Luisa Estella Morales Lamuño, the State argues that the retirement benefits granted to Mrs. Morales were in compliance with the criteria established by the doctrine of the Supreme Court of Justice, which provided that this benefit could be extended to judges punished by dismissal, who had served for 10 years in the judiciary. The State pointed out that Mrs. Morales met that requirement, having served for 13 years in the judiciary, while the petitioners had served only 3 years. 29. Based on the preceding arguments, the State requests that the Commission declare the case inadmissible, stating that it refutes, rejects, and contests the arguments in fact and in law presented by the petitioners. IV. ANALYSIS OF JURISDICTION AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Jurisdiction materiae, ratione personae, ratione temporis and ratione loci of the Commission 30. The petitioners and their representative are authorized under Article 44 of the Convention to lodge complaints with the IACHR. The petition presents as alleged victims Ana Maria Ruggeri Cova, Perkins Rocha Contreras and Juan Carlos Apitz Barbera, wherefore the Commission has jurisdiction ratione personae to examine the petition. For its part, the State ratified the American Convention on August 9, 1977. 31. The Commission has jurisdiction ratione loci to hear the petition as it alleges violations of rights protected in the American Convention that purportedly took place within the territory of a State Party to that treaty. The IACHR also has jurisdiction ratione temporis based on the fact that the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected in the American Convention was already binding on the Venezuelan State on the date on which the allegations in this petition occurred. 32. In terms of jurisdiction ratione materiae, the IACHR notes that the petitioners maintained that the State violated the right to juridical guarantees (Article 8); to political rights (Article 23); equality before the law (Article 24), judicial protection (Article 25), and the rights flowing from the representative democratic form of government (Article 29(c)), consonant with the general obligation envisaged in Article 1(1) and the duty envisaged in Article 2, which are protected by the American Convention. B. Admissibility Requirements 1. Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies 6