8. The petitioners allege that their petition is admissible because domestic remedies have been exhausted as per Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention. B. The State 9. The State did not present observations or arguments on the petition within the two months granted by the Commission, nor did it seek an extension of that term. IV. ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Preliminary considerations 10. The Commission regrets that the Nicaraguan State has not availed itself of the procedural opportunity provided for at Article 48 of the Convention and Article 30 of the Rules of Procedure, its right to send information, make observations, controvert or challenge the admissibility of the complaint submitted by the petitioners, failing to avail itself of the procedural rights afforded by the inter-American system of human rights. The Commission considers that the State has tacitly waived its right to controvert or call into question the admissibility requirements of the petition. B. Competence ratione loci, ratione personae, ratione temporis and ratione materiae of the Commission 11. The petitioners are authorized by Article 44 of the American Convention to present complaints to the Commission. The complaint indicates as alleged victims individuals with respect to whom the Nicaraguan State undertook to respect and guarantee the rights enshrined in the Convention. As regards the State, the Commission observes that Nicaragua is a state party to the American Convention, having ratified it September 25, 1979. Accordingly, the Commission is competent ratione personae to examine the petition. 12. The Commission is competent ratione loci to hear this petition insofar as it alleges violations of rights protected in the American Convention in the territory of Nicaragua, which is a state party. 13. The Commission is competent ratione temporis insofar as the facts alleged in the petition took place when the obligation to respect and ensure the rights established in the Convention was already in force for the Nicaraguan State. 14. With respect to competence ratione materiae, the petitioners ask the Commission to declare that the State violated the rights to a fair trial (Article 8), political rights (Article 23), equality before the law (Article 24), and judicial protection (Article 25), and the obligation to respect the rights (Article 1(1)), established in the Convention, as well as the right to vote and to participation in government (Article XX) and the right of assembly (Article XXI) of the Declaration. 15. The Commission considers that once the Convention entered into force for the State, the Convention, and not the Declaration, became the primary source of law applicable by the Commission, 7 so long as the petition refers to an alleged violation of rights that are identical in both instruments, 8 and not a continuing violation. In the instant case, there is similarity in the subject matter as between the provisions of the Declaration and the Convention invoked by the petitioners. Accordingly, the right to vote and participate in government (Article XX) and the right of assembly (Article XXI), enshrined in the Declaration, are subsumed in the provisions that provide for the rights protected at Articles 23 and 15 of the Convention. 7 The I/A Court H.R. has indicated: “For the States Parties to the Convention, the specific source of their obligations with respect to the protection of human rights is, in principle, the Convention itself.” Advisory Opinion OC-10/89 (Interpretation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man Within the Framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights), of July 14, 1989, para. 46. 8 The I/A Court H.R. has stated that “these States cannot escape the obligations they have as members of the OAS under the Declaration, notwithstanding the fact that the Convention is the governing instrument for the States Parties thereto.” Advisory Opinion OC-10/89, of July 14, 1989, para. 46. 3