do not indicate violations of the rights enshrined in Articles 24 and 25 of the American Convention. IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence 1. Competence ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione temporis, and ratione materiae of the Commission 28. The petitioners have standing under Article 44 of the Convention to submit complaints on behalf of the alleged victims. The alleged victims in the case were under the jurisdiction of the Peruvian State on the date of the alleged facts. For its part, the State of Peru ratified the American Convention on July 28, 1978. As a result, the Commission is competent ratione personae to examine the petition. Although the alleged victims in the case are not individually identified, in the potential merits phase, the Commission will consider the possible violation of rights enshrined in the Convention with respect to individuals who successfully identify themselves as members of SUTECASA, who were beneficiaries of the court decision that has allegedly not been enforced. 29. The Commission is competent ratione loci to hear the petition, in that it alleges violations of rights protected by the American Convention that took place in the territory of a State party to that convention. 30. The Commission is also competent ratione temporis since the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected by the American Convention was already in effect for the State on the date on which the facts alleged in the petition would have occurred. 31. Finally, the Commission is competent ratione materiae, because the petition denounces alleged violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. B. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 32. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention provides that in order for a complaint filed with the Inter-American Commission to be admissible in accordance with Article 44 of the Convention, the domestic remedies must have been attempted and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. The purpose of this requirement is to allow domestic authorities to hear the alleged violation of a protected right and, if appropriate, to have the opportunity to resolve the situation before it is heard by an international body. 33. The Peruvian State filed the objection on a timely basis with respect to a failure to exhaust domestic remedies. The argument raised by the State is summarized as stating that although the petitioners obtained a favorable decision in the constitutional appeal, that decision ruled on the inapplicability of the Executive Decrees and did not include orders to pay fringe benefits. In this sense, the State argued that the petitioners had to initiate an ordinary declarative labor proceeding regarding the debt that, in their view, is owed to them by the State. 34. The attachments provided by the parties indicate that as of the date the decision in the constitutional appeal ruling in favor of the alleged victims became final – February 16, 1993 – the respective process executing the decision began. The Commission notes that the decision of February 12, 1999, ordered that the case be