25. The State concludes that this correspondence is proof that concurrency of international legal action is operating in this case and, therefore, requests that the instant petition be declared “inadmissible.” IV. ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. The Commission’s competence ratione materiae, ratione personae, ratione temporis, and ratione loci 26. The petitioners are entitled to present petitions before the IACHR pursuant to Article 44 of the American Convention. The petition identifies Johan Alexis Ortiz Hernández as the alleged victim and therefore, the Commission has competence ratione personae to examine the petition. For its part, the State ratified the American Convention on August 9, 1977. 27. The Commission has competence ratione loci to take up the petition inasmuch as it claims violations of rights protected by the American Convention, which allegedly occurred within the territory of a State party to that treaty. Likewise, the IACHR has competence ratione temporis inasmuch as the obligation to respect and ensure the rights protected by the American Convention was in force for the State on the date the events described in the petition allegedly occurred. 28. With regard to its competence ratione materiae, the IACHR notes that the petitioners maintained that the State violated the rights to life (Article 4), personal integrity (Article 5), a fair trial (Article 8), and judicial protection (Article 25) protected by the American Convention. B. Admissibility Requirements 1. Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies 29. The petitioners claim that more than seven years after the events occurred, the investigation remains in its initial stage. To date, none of the individuals accused of responsibility in the events has been brought to trial. Because of the lack of diligence and adherence to due process in the investigation carried out by the military justice system, all the proceedings have been annulled three times during hearings, which has meant “going back to zero three times.” Consequently, the petitioners believe that a decision of admissibility applies based on unwarranted delays in the legal process. 30. The State argued that domestic remedies have not been exhausted. The State asserted that the charges stemming from public vengeance [vindicta pública] and the petitioners were declared inadmissible by the court of first instance. In light of that ruling, the petitioners appealed to the Court Martial of the Republic, the highest level of military justice, which overturned the first instance decision and ordered that new charges be filed. The petitioners also pursued a revocation remedy [recurso de casación] before the Supreme Court of Justice, which was declared inadmissible. This history was repeated a second time in the same way. Finally, the third time public and private charges were filed, the prosecutor admitted them and an oral, public hearing was scheduled to try the individuals allegedly involved in the death of the petitioners’ son. Under these circumstances, after much jurisdictional activity, the petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court of Justice claiming violations of due process and the principle of the natural judge [juez natural], and the Constitutional Division of the