7 30. In regard to the alleged violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, the State argued that in the instant case, all the investigative lines that reasonably could have led to a determination of the cause of death of José Delfín Acosta Martínez had been pursued; that the investigation had been complete, independent, and impartial; that the testimonies of various witnesses had been considered; that under Argentinian law, the system allows a free appraisal of evidence and the effectiveness of the appraisal of evidence of the different means of proof is not set by rules that are binding on the judge; and that the petitioners asked that the IACHR hold the Argentinian State responsible because of an assessment made by the judges and courts based on the evidence produced in the case. It held that, as complainants, the relatives of the presumed victim had ample possibilities to uphold their position before the judges, and that the only evidence rejected was the request of the complaint to call all the people who had testified in the case, some repeatedly, to testify again. Finally, it alleged that they had access to all the domestic remedies available under domestic law to contest the judgments of the first and second instances. IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis and ratione loci of the Commission 31. The petitioners have a legitimate right to lodge a petition with the Commission as provided for in Article 44 of the American Convention. The petition names as the presumed victim an individual for whom the State has assumed the commitment to respect and guarantee the rights recognized by the American Convention. As for the State, the Commission notes that Argentina has been a State Party to the American Convention since September 5, 1984, when it deposited its instrument of ratification. The Commission is therefore competent ratione personae to examine the petition. 32. The Commission is competent ratione loci to consider the petition, since it alleges violations of rights protected by the American Convention committed within the territory of a State Party thereto. The IACHR is competent ratione temporis, since the State’s obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected in the American Convention existed on the date it is claimed the violations of the rights alleged in the petition occurred. Finally, the Commission is competent ratione materiae, because the petition adduces violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. B. Other admissibility requirements 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 33. For a complaint regarding the alleged violation of the provisions of the American Convention to be admitted, it must meet the requirements established in Article 46.1 of that international instrument. Article 46.1.a of the American Convention establishes that to determine the admissibility of a petition or communication submitted to the IACHR pursuant to Articles 44 or 45 of the Convention, domestic remedies must have been pursued and exhausted, in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. 34. The petitioners state that the relatives of the presumed victim exhausted all the domestic remedies and that the last appeal they presented was the complaint filed with the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation against the decision that dismissed the federal special appeal (recurso extraordinario federal) within the framework of criminal proceedings. For its part, the State did not submit arguments to