40. Pursuant to Article 44 of the American Convention and Article 23 of the IACHR’s Rules of Procedure, the petitioners are entitled to lodge petitions before the Commission relating to alleged violations of the rights set forth in the American Convention. With respect to the State, the Dominican Republic is party to the Convention and, therefore, is accountable in the international sphere for violations of that instrument. The alleged victims are natural persons with respect to whom the State has undertaken to ensure the rights enshrined in the Convention. Therefore, the Commission is competent ratione personae to examine the complaint concerning the alleged victims. 41. The Commission is competent ratione materiae insofar as the petition describes violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. 42. The IACHR is competent ratione temporis inasmuch as the obligation to respect and ensure the rights protected in the American Convention were in effect for the State on the date on which the events described in the petition allegedly occurred; the Dominican Republic ratified the American Convention on April 19, 1978. 43. The Commission is competent ratione loci to take up the petition insofar as it claims violations of rights protected in the American Convention on Human Rights that allegedly occurred within the territory of a State party to those instruments. A. Other admissibility requirements of the petition 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 44. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention provides that in order for a petition brought before the Commission to be consider admissible, it is subject to the requirement “that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law.” 45. In the instant case, the State did not raise the exception of exhaustion of domestic remedies. Based on that, and in light of the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the subject,6 the Commission concludes that the State has tacitly waived its right to invoke the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. 2. Time frame for lodging the petition 46. The Commission’s Rules of Procedure stipulate, in Article 32(1), that the Commission shall consider “those petitions that are lodged within a period of six months following the date on which the alleged victims has been notified of the decision that exhausted the domestic remedies.” The Commission is of the opinion that, in this case, based on the information considered concerning the exception to the exhaustion of domestic remedies and in light of the lack of a pronouncement from the State with respect to the time frame for lodging the complaint, the State has tacitly waived its opportunity to invoke this exception and, therefore, the aforementioned article of the Rules of Procedure is not applicable.7 3. Duplication of proceedings and international res judicata 47. There is nothing in the file to indicate that the subject matter of the petition is pending before any other procedure for international settlement or that it duplicates a petition that has already been examined by this or any other international body. Therefore, the requirements set forth in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention have been met. 4. Characterization of the facts alleged 6 Inter-Am. Ct HR, Castillo Páez Case, Preliminary Exceptions, Judgment of January 30, 1996, paras. 41-43; and Loayza Tamayo Case, Preliminary Exceptions, Judgment of January 31, 1996, paras. 41-43. 7 Report N°57/04, petitions 771/03 y 841/03, admissibility, Oscar Elías Biscet et al, Cuba, October 14, 2004, para. 28 5