15. It adds that the Peruvian Constitutional Court interpreted Law Nº 26479 (Amnesty Law) as follows: “regarding the right to civil reparations, Article 58 of the Code of Military Justice stipulates that amnesty and pardons do not affect legal actions to seek civil reparations. As a result, persons who feel they were injured in events for which amnesty has been granted can exercise their rights to due civil reparations against the perpetrators of those offenses or against the State, as is its duty stemming from its residual liability (). If some injured parties do not obtain these reparations, they can make their claim before the competent authorities.” 16. Finally, its letter submitted to the Inter-American Commission on May 21, 1998 states that: For the reasons given, which corroborate the arguments contained in its previous reply, the Peruvian State requests that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights proceed with the examination of the case, pursuant to Article 35(a) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, and find inadmissible Case Nº 11.581-Zulema Tarazona Arriate et al., referred to in the Peruvian reports pursuant to Article 47(a), consistent with Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention on Human Rights and Articles 32(d), 37(1) and 41(a) in the aforementioned Rules of Procedure. IV. ANALYSIS 17. The Commission will now examine the admissibility requirements for petitions set forth in the American Convention. A. Competence ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione temporis, and ratione materiae of the Commission 18. The petitioners are authorized to present complaints to the IACHR under Article 44 of the American Convention. The petition indicates that the alleged victims were individuals and that Peru undertook to respect and guarantee the rights of those individuals enshrined in the American Convention. The Commission notes that Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 28, 1978, when it deposited the respective instrument of ratification. The Commission therefore has competence ratione personae to examine the petition. 19. The Commission has competence ratione loci to hear the petition, because it alleges the violation of rights protected under the American Convention that might have occurred in the territory of a State Party to the Convention. 20. The IACHR has competence ratione temporis because the obligation to observe and guarantee the rights enshrined in the American Convention was already in effect in the State on the date of the events alleged in the petition. 21. Finally, the Commission has competence ratione materiae, because the petition denounces violations of human rights protected under the American Convention. B. Admissibility requirements 1. Exhaustion of local remedies 22. The Commission observes that the petition deals with the murder of two persons and the injuries caused to a third, attributed to an agent of the Peruvian state. The parties agree that two investigations were launched into the events denounced, one in regular criminal courts, and the other in the military courts. The same member of the Peruvian army was charged in the two cases, both of which were dismissed as a result of the amnesty laws. 3