5 29. It adds that the fact that the suspects were traveling by car made it impossible to obtain a warrant first, “for reasons of urgency and the irreparable nature of what would happen in the absence of prompt action”, because they could have escaped from the location or jurisdiction in which the warrant had to be obtained. 30. The State argues that Mr. Fernández Prieto enjoyed due process guarantees, availed himself of all judicial instances, and was tried by competent, independent, and impartial courts. It contends that the petitioner is attempting to have the Commission act as a fourth instance of appeal for domestic judgments. Accordingly, the State asks the Commission to declare the petition inadmissible because it does not tend to establish the existence of human rights violations. 2. Re. Carlos Alejandro Tumbeiro 31. In its note of March 11, 2009, the State indicated that, although the Tumbeiro case and the Fernández Prieto case share certain similarities, they have different factual and legal bases, which was why it had requested that the petitions be separated. In the same note, the State suggested to the Commission and the petitioners the creation of a space for dialogue with a view to exploring the possibility of a friendly settlement with respect to the petition of Carlos Alejandro Tumbeiro. In a note of June 13, 2011, it repeated its proposal of creating a space for dialogue, without commenting on the petition’s admissibility. It should be noted that, in their communications of July 21, 2009 and July 20, 2010, the petitioners asserted the importance of keeping the petitions joined, with the result that no friendly settlement proceedings have been initiated. IV. ANALYSIS DE ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis, and ratione loci of the Commission 32. The petitioners are empowered by Article 44 of the Convention to submit petitions to the Commission. The petition specifies alleged victims who are natural persons, whose rights the State is bound to respect and ensure under the American Convention. As regards the State, the Commission notes that Argentina has been a State party to the Convention since the deposit of its instrument of ratification on September 5, 1984. Accordingly, the Commission is competent ratione personae to hear the petition. 33. The Commission is competent ratione loci to hear the petition inasmuch as it alleges violations of rights protected by the American Convention that took place within the territory of a State party to that treaty. The Commission is competent ratione temporis because the obligation to respect and ensure the rights protected under the American Convention was already in force for the State at the time of the facts alleged in the petition. Lastly, the Commission is competent ratione materiae because the petition alleges violations of rights protected under the American Convention. 34. Regarding the alleged violation of Articles I, V, XVIII, and XXV of the American Declaration, it should be noted that when the American Convention entered into force for Argentina, it, and not the Declaration, became the applicable source of law if a petition refers to the alleged violation of rights that are substantially identical in both instruments. In this case, the rights allegedly violated by the State under the Declaration are protected under the Convention, and the events giving rise to the claim took place after the American Convention came into force for Argentina. Consequently, the Commission will confine itself to alleged violations of the Convention, to the exclusion of the Declaration. B. Other requirements for admissibility of the petition 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 35. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention provides that, for a petition lodged with the Inter-American Commission to be admissible, the remedies under domestic law must have been pursued