ordinary citizen and that in doing so the State violated the right enshrined in Article 24 of the American Convention.10 B. The State 17. The State asserts that the petition was forwarded to it on September 14, 2005, beyond the deadline of six months from the date when the alleged injured party was notified of the final decision as provided under Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention. 11 It asserts that the petitioner’s brief does not provide any violation of the Convention and that the mere imposition of a criminal sanction through proper prosecution of the author of the crime of defamation does not constitute per se a violation of rights as alleged by the petitioner.12 18. The State alleges that the petition is manifestly groundless, lacking a sufficient basis to make Chile internationally responsible. The State asserts that although Mr. Baraona Bray was able to express himself freely, his statements injured the reputation of a Senator of the Republic, and he should assume the subsequent imposition of liabilities. It states that in the instant case, the sanction imposed on the alleged victim meets all the assumptions established under Article 13 of the American Convention. It states that the fact that someone is subsequently penalized after being found guilty of making slanderous or defamatory statements does not diminish his right to express himself freely. 19. Regarding the freedom from ex post facto laws alleged by the petitioner, the State indicates that the petitioner’s allegations are unfounded and meaningless, and refrains from commenting on their possible characterization. 20. The State maintains that the petition seeks to have an additional instance to amend the unfavorable judgment handed down by Chile’s Supreme Court. It emphasizes that “the Commission cannot review the judgments issued by the domestic courts acting within their competence and with due judicial guarantees, unless it considers that a possible violation of the Convention is involved.”13 21. Finally, the State asks the Commission to declare the petition inadmissible based on the assertions made above, in accordance with the relevant provisions of its Rules of Procedure and the American Convention. IV. A. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY AND COMPETENCE Competence ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis, and ratione loci 22. In accordance with Article 44 of the American Convention and Article 23 of the IACHR Rules of Procedure, the petitioner is authorized to file petitions with the Commission regarding alleged violations of rights established under the Convention. The State of Chile is a party to the American Convention and thus responsible in the international arena for violations of that Convention. Petition sent to the IACHR on March 4, 2005, page 15 State’s response sent to the IACHR on February 13, 2006, page 1. 12 Idem, page 9. 13 IACHR, Abella et al. Case (Argentina), N° 11.137. Report 55/97, November 18, 1997, para. 141, cited by the State in its response sent to the IACHR on February 13, 2006, page 12. 10 11 4

Select target paragraph3