19. With respect to that reservation, the State asserted that the democratic governments believed it was necessary in order for them to make enormous efforts to resolve the human rights violations of the recent past in the domestic sphere. It listed initiatives taken by the State, such as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, among others. It remarked that the reservation does not aim to ignore the mechanisms of the international community, and stated that its inclusion does not mean that events prior to 1990 were inapplicable to the State as an uninterrupted entity. 20. The State maintained that the abovementioned restriction ex ratione temporis can in no way be considered contrary to the object and purpose of the American Convention. It stated that it is based on a common sense rule; that is, that the State submits to supervision only from the time of its ratification, or— rather—only from the time it can reasonably answer for the acts committed under its rule. The State argued that it is has sovereignty to decide the conditions under which it will submit to such international oversight, which is why this matter concerns the responsible exercise of sovereignty. IV. ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence of the Commission ratione materiae, ratione personae, ratione temporis, and ratione loci 21. Under Article 44 of the American Convention and Article 23 of the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR, the petitioner has locus standi to file petitions before the Inter-American Commission. With respect to the State, Chile is a party to the American Convention, and therefore is internationally accountable for violations of that instrument. The alleged victims are individuals with respect to whom the State agreed to guarantee the rights enshrined in the American Convention. Accordingly, the Commission has jurisdiction ratione personae to examine the petition. 22. The IACHR also has jurisdiction ratione materiae because the petition alleges the violation of human rights protected by the American Convention. The Commission notes that the Chilean State asserts that, according to Chile’s reservations to the Convention, in the application of Article 21.2 of the Convention, statements may not be made concerning the reasons of public utility or social interest taken into account in depriving a person of his property. On this point, the Commission establishes that this dispute does not center on the aforementioned reasons. 23. With respect to jurisdiction ratione temporis, the Commission observes that Chile has been a State Party to the American Convention since August 21, 1990, date on which it deposited its ratification instrument. On this point, the Chilean State asserts that it would not be responsible, under the framework of the American Convention, for violations originating in 1973 and 1974. Nevertheless, the petitioner underscored that his allegations refer to civil case No. 3201, which he filed on September 7, 1995, and the January 21, 2004 judgment of the Supreme Court of Chile, which concluded that civil case; on those dates, the Convention was already in force for the Chilean State. 24. Indeed, according to the case file, the totality of the court proceedings complained of in this petition were conducted after the date on which Chile ratified the American Convention. Therefore, the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights enshrined in the American Convention was already in effect for the Chilean State at the time. The civil case was brought by the petitioner in 1995 and ended with the January 21, 2004 decision of the Chilean Supreme Court, which denied the alleged victims—based on the time-barring of the civil action by the statute of limitations—access to financial reparations to compensate them for the actions taken against them following the coup of September 11, 1973. Therefore, and as has been stated on other occasions, 2 although the alleged violations of the right of access to justice, the right to property, and the 2 IACHR. Report No. 61/05. Petition 698/03. Admissibility. Lucía Morales Compagno and Children. Chile. October 12, 2005, para. 23; IACHR. Report No .60/05. Petition 511/03. Admissibility. María Órdenes Guerra. Chile. October 12, 2005. para. 24; IACHR. Report No. 62/05. Petition 862/03. Admissibility. Alina Maria Barraza Codoceo et al. Chile. October 12, 2005. para. 21; IACHR. Report No. 59/05. Petition 381/04. Admissibility. Magdalena Mercedes Navarrete, Alberto Reyes Navarrete, Víctor Eduardo Reyes Navarrete, Patricio Hernán Reyes Navarrete, Pamela Adriana Vivanco, Katia Ximena del Carmen Espejo Gómez, Elena Alejandrina Vargas Gómez, Ilia María Pradenas Páez, Mario Melo Acuña, and Carlos Gustavo Melo Pradenas. Chile. October 12, 2005. para. 23. 4