allocate an amount equivalent to the resources it had failed to receive as a result of derogation of Ministerial Resolution Nº 303-91-TC/15.03 and Article 4 of Supreme Decree Nº 054-91PCM. 28. It reported that the Peruvian State has been evaluating financial possibilities with a view to arriving at a satisfactory solution to the present petition before the IACHR, using the resources of the Ministry of Economy and Finance. The State added that “since the term of office of the transition government is about to come to an end, any measures to be adopted would come from the new constitutional government.” IV. ANALYSIS 29. The Commission undertook an analysis of the requirements for admissibility of a petition, as established in the American Convention. A. Competence of the Commission ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione temporis, and ratione materiae 30. The petitioners are authorized by Article 44 of the American Convention to lodge complaints with the IACHR. According to the petition, the presumed victims are private individuals, in respect of whom Peru has undertaken a commitment to respect and guarantee the rights enshrined in the American Convention. As far as the State is concerned, the Commission observes that Peru has been a State party to the American Convention since July 28, 1978, the date it deposited its instrument of ratification. Therefore, the Commission has competence ratione personae to consider the petition. 31. The Commission is competent ratione loci to consider this petition, because the petition alleges violations of rights protected by the American Convention that occurred within the territory of a state party to that agreement. 32. The IACHR is competent ratione temporis, because the events alleged in the petition took place when the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights established in the Convention were already in effect for the Peruvian State. 33. Finally, the Commission is competent ratione materiae, because the petition reports violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. B. Requirements for admissibility of the petition 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 34. The petition under consideration refers to noncompliance by the Peruvian State with the decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic dated February 12, 1992. The State did not enter any pleas in relation to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies. On this point, the Inter-American Court has stated that “in order for a plea arguing failure to exhaust domestic remedies to be timely, it must be submitted in the early stages of the proceeding, and failure to do so may be presumed as tacit relinquishment by the state in question of its right to avail itself of that plea.” 1 1 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Velásquez Rodriguez Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987, Series C, Nº 1, par. 8; Fairén Garbi and Solis Corrales Case, Preliminary Objections, Decision of June 26, 1987, Series C, Nº 2, par. 87; Gangaram Panday Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of December 4, 1991, Series C, Nº 12, par. 38; Loayza Tamayo Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of January 31, 1996, Series C, Nº 25, par. 40.