29. The State requests that the Inter-American Commission declare the complaint inadmissible by virtue of the allegations made and in accordance with the provisions of both the American Convention and the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis, andratione loci 30. In accordance with Article 44 of the American Convention and Article 23 of the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR, the petitioners have standing to submit petitions to the Commission regarding alleged violations of the rights established in that treaty. As regards the State, Chile is a party to the American Convention and thus answerable in the international arena for violations of that instrument. 31. In this regard, the State argues that the complaint with respect to the 69 Mapuche leaders who signed the petition was inadmissible and groundless. For their part, the petitioners clarified in their brief dated December 30, 2005 that the victim of the human rights violations they report is Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe and that the attorneys as well as the 69 Mapuche who signed the petition did so as petitioners. 32. Thus, the petition indicates as the alleged victim an individual with respect to whom the Chilean State agreed to honor and guarantee rights enshrined in the American Convention. Based on all the foregoing, the Inter-American Commission is competent ratione personae to examine the complaint. 33. The IACHR is competent ratione materiae because the petition refers to complaints of violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. In addition, it enjoys competence ratione temporis in that the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected in that treaty was already in effect for the State on the date on which the event alleged in the petition would have taken place, given that Chile ratified the American Convention on August 21, 1990. Finally, the Inter-American Commission is competent ratione loci to hear the petition, in that it alleges violations of rights protected under the American Convention that would have occurred within the territory of a State Party to that instrument. B. Requirements for admissibility of the petition 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 34. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention establishes as one of the requirements for admission of a petition “that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law." 35. Based on the information provided by the parties, the Commission notes that domestic remedies have been exhausted with respect to the facts denounced in this petition. In effect, on November 22, 2004, the Supreme Court rejected the complaint appeal the defense filed on behalf of Mr. Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe, which sought the invalidation of the conviction due to serious error or abuse in the decision. 36. In accordance with Article 97 of the Organic Code of Courts, decisions issued by the Supreme Court in appeals on substantive grounds, on procedural grounds, for complaint, for protection, for constitutional protection, and for review are not subject to appeal whatsoever, other than for clarification, correction or amendment as established in Article 182 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Any resubmission or reconsideration of the rulings referred to in this article is inadmissible and shall be rejected in full by the President of the Court. 6