Commission would consider accepting this case[…].” 2 This information was passed on to the State at the same time as the initial complaint, on February 22, 2011. 23. The IACHR notes that, as provided in the American Convention and the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, it is competent to determine processing of a petition, based on the petition or information provided by the petitioners, or motu proprio. 3 In this case, the Commission considers that the first alternative is applicable, taking into account the initial petition and the notes presented by the petitioner before the opening, so it will proceed to analyze whether admissibility requirements have been met. B. Competence 24. The petitioner is entitled, in principle, by Article 44 of the American Convention to present petitions to the Inter-American Commission. The petition identified as alleged victims individual persons for whom the State of Mexico was obligated to respect and guarantee the rights established in the American Convention. Mexico has been a State party to the American Convention since March 24, 1981, the date on which it deposited its instrument of ratification. Therefore, the Commission has ratione personae competence to examine the petition. The IACHR has ratione temporis competence, because the petitioner alleges violations that occurred starting in 2006, when the American Convention was in force for Mexico. 25. The Commission has ratione loci competence to examine the petition, given that it alleges rights protected by the American Convention that allegedly took place in the territory of de Mexico, a State party to that treaty. The Commission also has ratione materiae in this case, because the petition alleges facts that could tend to establish a violation of rights protected by the American Convention. C. Requirements for Admissibility 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 26. Article 46.1.a of the American Convention stipulates, as a requirement for admission of a petition presented to the Inter-American Commission under the terms of Article 44 of that treaty, that remedies under domestic law have been exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. This is a procedural requirement to inform national authorities of alleged violations of a protected right so that they have the opportunity, if possible, to correct them within their jurisdiction before they are considered at the international level. 27. In the instant case, the IACHR notes that the parties disagree with respect to compliance with this requirement of the Convention. The State alleges failure to exhaust internal remedies, given that the alleged victims did not file an amparo appeal against the appellate judgment of October 16, 2008, issued by the Second Central Court of the Seventh Circuit, which absolved the defendants of the offense of organized crime, confirmed the penalty for bribery, and ordered their immediate release. The petitioners says that at least four amparo motions and two appeals were filed to protect the right to liberty and due process guarantees of the alleged victims, none of which proved effective. 28. After analyzing the information and documents supplied by the parties, the IACHR notes that at different times the alleged victims filed various motions to challenge the measures of deprivation of their personal liberty. In fact, the available information indicates that after their arrest on January 12, 2006, on March 2 Petitioner’s note of November 14, 2008, p. 2 (“Without anything more at the moment, we will end this note but not without first reiterating the assurances of our highest consideration and the hope that the Inter-American Commission would consider accepting this case because of the systematic violations of due process and especially because of the illegality of the procedure of arraigo to which Messrs. Jorge Marcial Tzompaxtle Tecpile, Gerardo Txompaxtle Tecpile, and Gustavo Roble López were subjected for three months.” 3 Specifically, the IACHR notes Article 48 of the American Convention, which stipulates: “When the Commission receives a petition or communication alleging violation of any of the rights protected by this Convention, it shall proceed as follows: […] a) if it considers the petition or communication admissible, it shall request information from the government of the state indicated as being responsible for the alleged violations […].” In addition, Article 24 of the IACHR Rules of Procedure states: “The Commission may also, motu proprio, initiate the processing of a petition which, in its view, meets the necessary requirements.”