6 competence of the Constitutional Bench. The State indicates that Article 49 of the Constitution establishes a plenary and universal jurisdiction for administrative complaints that allows an interested party to impugn or attack any conduct or manifestation by an administrative body before this jurisdictional order. The State claims that aspects that go beyond fundamental rights of equality and non-discrimination shall be heard and argued fully in the appropriate judicial court because, given the most summary nature of an amparo appeal, all matters related to aptitude for the job and the legality of the decision to terminate would necessarily have to be argued in another jurisdiction. 22. In summary, the State claims that the process in which Mr. Guevara Díaz participated was conducted according to national and international law pertinent to disabilities, and that he had access to the job he wanted under equal conditions to those of other candidates, without discrimination or prejudice. IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. Jurisdiction: ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione temporis and ratione materia 23. The petitioners have standing, in principle, according to Article 44 of the American Convention, to file petitions with the Commission. The petition identifies as the alleged victim as an individual to whom the State of Costa Rica has committed itself to respect and guarantee the rights enshrined in the American Convention. As for the State, the Commission recognizes that Costa Rica has been a Party State to the American Convention since April 8, 1970, the date on which it deposited its ratification instrument, and of the Protocol of San Salvador since November 16, 1999. Therefore, the Commission has ratione personae jurisdiction to examine the petition. 24. Likewise, the Commission has ratione loci jurisdiction to hear the petition, given that in it are alleged violations of rights protected under the American Convention and the Protocol of San Salvador that are claimed to have taken place in the territory of Costa Rica, a Party State to those treaties. The Commission has ratione temporis jurisdiction because the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected under the American Convention and the Protocol of San Salvador were in force for the State on the date the facts alleged in the petition purportedly took place. 25. The Commission has ratione materiae jurisdiction because the petition contains accusations of possible violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. As for the Protocol of San Salvador, though the IACHR lacks ratione materiae jurisdiction under its system of individual petitions to rule on an individual case of violations of Article 18 of the Protocol, pursuant to the provisions in Articles 26 and 29 of the American Convention, the IACHR can consider the provisions contained in the Protocol in the interpretation of other applicable provisions of the American Convention and of other treaties over which it does have ratione materiae jurisdiction.13 Therefore, the Inter-American Commission will interpret the articles of the Protocol of San Salvador to the extent it is deemed relevant in its applicability to the American Convention. 14 B. Requirements for admissibility of the petition 13 See IACHR Report No. 44/04, Laura Tena Colunga et al (Inadmissibility), Mexico, October 13, 2004. Paragraphs 33-40; IACHR, Jorge Odir Miranda Cortez et al (Admissibility), El Salvador, Case 12.249, Report No. 29/01, paragraph 36. 14 Article 19.6 of the Protocol of San Salvador establishes the following: In the event that the rights established in paragraph a) of Article 8 and in Article 13 have been violated by an action directly imputable to a Party State to this Protocol, that situation could take occur through the participation of the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights and when there is standing, of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, to the application of the system of individual petitions regulated by Articles 44 to 51 and 61 to 69 of the American Convention on Human Rights.