33. Furthermore, it indicated that the petitioner had not filed the petition within reasonable timelimits as it was filed in July 2008, that is, six years after the resolution he was challenging had been issued. The State considered that, because the petitioner had not exhausted the appeal on constitutional grounds against the resolution to not renew his employment, he had not used the mechanisms provided by the jurisdiction to validate his claim. As a result, it requests the Commission to rule that the petition was inadmissible by virtue of Article 47 b) and c) of the American Convention. Jean Aubert Alvarado Díaz (P-739-08) 34. It indicated that the appeal on constitutional grounds was ruled inadmissible on the basis of Article 5, subparagraph 7, of Law No. 28237, which establishes that constitutional appeals are not admissible when challenges are made to final resolutions taken by CNM in connection with the dismissal and renewal of judges and prosecutors, as long as said resolutions were substantiated and issued on the basis of a prior hearing with the interested party. Regarding this, the petitioner had been interviewed in the process prior to his nonrenewal. 35. It also contended that the Constitutional Court had pointed out that, when the petitioner filed the appeal on constitutional grounds, more than six years had elapsed since the decision taken by the National Judicial Council to not renew him in his position, as a result of which the statute of limitations had been incurred, since the time-limits provided for in Article 44 of the Constitutional Proceedings Code had expired. As a result of the above, the State requests that the petition be ruled inadmissible on the basis of Article 47 b) and c) of the Convention. Marta Silvana Rodríguez Ricse (P-1065-08) 36. The State pointed out that the alleged victim filed the appeal on constitutional grounds five years after CNM’s decision to not renew her in her position as Deputy Provincial Prosecutor of the Judicial District of Junín. Regarding this, it indicated that, when the appeal on constitutional grounds was filed, the Constitutional Proceedings Code of 2004 had entered into force and its Article 44 established that the timelimits for filing an appeal on constitutional grounds was 60 working days after the ruling affecting the right, as a result of which the appeal of the alleged victim had been ruled inadmissible in all instances, because it had failed to meet a basic procedural requirement. The State believes that the petition fails to meet the requirement of admissibility envisaged in Article 46.1 a) of the American Convention in connection with the exhaustion of remedies under domestic law. IV. REVIEW OF JURISDICTION AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Jurisdiction ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione temporis and ratione materiae of the Commission 37. The petitioners are entitled by Article 44 of the Convention to file petitions. The alleged victims were under the jurisdiction of the Peruvian State at the time of the incidents that were reported. As for Peru, it ratified the American Convention on July 28, 1978. As a result, the Commission has jurisdiction ratione personae to hear the petitions. 38. The Commission has jurisdiction ratione loci to hear the petitions, as they allege violations of rights protected by the American Convention that took place in the territory of a State party to said treaty. 39. The Commission also has jurisdiction ratione temporis because the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected by the American Convention was in force for the State at the time the incidents alleged in the petitions occurred.