38. Lastly, the State alleges that the right of the alleged victims to freedom of expression has not been violated, since the criminal punishment imposed thereon was expressly and previously established in law, and constitutes subsequent imposition of liability to protect the plaintiffs’ right to honor and reputation. It states that such elements are in accordance with the requirements of Article 13(2) of the American Convention. IV. ADMISSIBILITY AND COMPETENCE A. Competence of the Commission ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis, and ratione loci 39. Under Article 44 of the American Convention, the petitioners have the right to lodge petitions with the IACHR. The alleged victims are natural persons with regard to whom the Argentine State undertook to respect and guarantee the rights enshrined in the Convention. Argentina ratified the American Convention on Human Rights on September 5, 1984. Therefore, the IACHR has competence ratione personae to consider the instant petition. 40. The Commission has competence ratione loci to consider the petition as in it are alleged violations of rights protected by the American Convention, to the detriment of a natural person under the jurisdiction of a State that ratified said treaty. 41. The IACHR has competence ratione temporis since the alleged facts took place when the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights established in the Convention was in force for the State. Lastly, the IACHR has competence ratione materiae to consider the petition since in it are alleged possible violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. B. Admissibility requirements 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 42. Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention establishes as a requirement for admission of a petition “that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law.”41 The objective of this requirement is to enable national authorities to consider the alleged violation of a protected right and, if appropriate, resolve it prior to its consideration by an international instance. 43. According to copies of part of the case file forwarded by the petitioners, on December 29, 1994, Mr. Pablo Mémoli was convicted by the lower court to five months of imprisonment, suspended, for the crime of slander, as a result of remarks made in articles in the daily “La Libertad” and expressions pronounced in the radio program of “Radio Vall” on May 4 and 10, 1990.42 On the same date, and in the same case, Mr. Carlos Mémoli was convicted to one month of imprisonment, suspended, for 41 See I/A Court H.R., Exceptions to exhaustion of domestic remedies (Articles 46(1), 46(2)(1), and 46(2)(b) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-11/90 of August 10, 1990. Series A No.11, par. 17. 42 The articles that were the basis for the conviction are “Maneuvers of a Governing Committee,” of April 28, 1990; “Fraud in the Niches Case,” of April 28, 1990; the “Chusman” column of April 28, 1990; “Niches Case: the Judge Said that Bills of Sale Are in Fact Impossible and Invalid;” “All Buyers Without Exception Were Injured,” of June 16, 1990; and statements made on the Radio Vall program of May 4, 1990.