should be reduced to be proportionate to the conduct examined and to the case that the plaintiff [in the original suit] had made.” Accordingly, the State noted, the Supreme Court “reduced the damages to conform to the guidelines established by the American Convention.” 20. Lastly, the State argues that nothing was said in the ruling to the effect that the damages were based on criticisms made of a public official, precisely because “the subsequent imposition of liabilities was done in accordance with the law and the liabilities were of a scope necessary to ensure respect for the rights or reputation of others.” IV. A. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY Competence 21. Regarding the State, the Commission notes that Argentina has been party to the Convention since September 5, 1984, the date on which the respective instrument of ratification was deposited. 22. Under Article 44 of the American Convention and Article 23 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, the petitioners have standing to file petitions with the Commission with regard to the alleged violations of rights established in the American Convention. The alleged victims, Jorge Fontevecchia and Hector D’Amico, are natural persons whose Convention-protected rights the State pledged to guarantee. The Commission is, therefore, competent ratione personae to examine the complaint. 23. The Commission is competent ratione materiae because the petition alleges violation of human rights protected under the American Convention. The Commission is also competent ratione temporis since the obligation to respect and ensure the rights protected under the American Convention was already binding upon the State on the date the facts alleged in the petition were said to have occurred. Finally, the Commission is competent ratione loci because the alleged violations of Convention-protected rights were said to have occurred within the territory of a State party thereto. B. Requirements for the petition’s admissibility 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 24. The petitioners contend that the remedies under domestic law were exhausted with the Supreme Court’s ruling of September 25, 2001. The State, for its part, has made no claim to the effect that other remedies remained to be exhausted or that the remedies reported were improperly asserted. The Commission therefore considers that the petitioners did exhaust the proper domestic remedies and that the requirements stipulated in Article 46(1)(a) have been met. 2. Timeliness of the petition 25. Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention states that a petition must be lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the petitioner is notified of the final judgment exhausting domestic remedies. In the petition under study, the date of the final judgment is September 25, 2001. The petitioners filed their complaint with the Commission on November 15, 2001. The Commission therefore considers that the petition was filed within the time period stipulated in Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention. 3. Duplication of international proceedings and international res judicata 4