constitutional procedure, put forward a technical defense, and that it was addressed respecting her right to effective judicial protection and due process. 13. The State further argues that in light of the principle of subsidiarity and complementarity, the IACHR is not an appellate court with the powers to review supposed errors of fact or law that may have been made by the domestic courts acting within their jurisdiction, and were it to do so it would be intervening as a “fourth instance,” which also makes the petition inadmissible. IV. ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence 14. The petitioner is authorized, in principle, by Article 44 of the American Convention to file petitions with the Commission. The petition notes as the alleged victim an individual with respect to whom the State has assumed the commitment to respect and ensure the rights enshrined in the American Convention, as of July 28, 1978, the date Peru deposited its instrument of ratification. Therefore, the Commission is competent ratione personae to examine the petition. 15. The Commission is competent ratione loci to consider the petition for facts alleged to have occurred under the jurisdiction of a state party to the American Convention. The Commission is also competent ratione temporis to examine this petition under the American Convention for the acts that occurred after its ratification. Finally, the Commission is competent ratione materiae because the petitioners alleged violations of rights protected under the American Convention. B. Admissibility Requirements 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 16. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention requires the prior exhaustion of the remedies available in the domestic jurisdiction in keeping with generally recognized principles of international law as a requirement for admitting claims alleging violation of the American Convention. The purpose of this requirement is to afford the domestic authorities an opportunity to take cognizance of the alleged violation of a protected right and, if appropriate, resolve the situation before it is heard by an international body. 17. The petitioner argues that the domestic remedies were exhausted with the resolution of June 26, 1998, by the Supreme Court that ruled on a motion for annulment, and of which she was notified on September 23, 1999. The State did not make any argument regarding exhaustion of domestic remedies, nor did it controvert what was indicated by the petition in this respect. 18. Based on the available information, the IACHR notes that the petitioner exhausted domestic remedies by the judgment dismissing the motion for annulment that was filed, notice of which was given on September 23, 1999. Therefore, the Commission concludes that in this case domestic remedies were pursued and exhausted in keeping with Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention. 2. Deadline for filing the petition 19. Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention establishes that for a petition to be found admissible by the Commission it must be presented within six months of the date on which the person allegedly injured was notified of the final decision. 20. In the claim under analysis, the notice of the decision by the Supreme Court was made on September 23, 1999, and the petition was filed with the IACHR on March 22, 2000. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the instant petition meets the requirement established at Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention. 3