be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 47(a) of the Convention, in relation to Article 46(a) thereof. 23. The State says that it took steps to provide reparations to all the former workers who were dismissed irregularly from 1990 to 2000—approximately 28,000. To that end, it said that on July 28, 2002 Law No. 27803 was published implementing the recommendations of the commissions created pursuant to Law Nos. 25452 and 27586. That Law, according to the State, established a special program of benefits for the workers dismissed irregularly, who would have the option of one of the following benefits: (i) rehiring or job replacement; (ii) early retirement; (iii) monetary compensation; or (iv) vocational training and job retraining. 24. The State claims that Empresa Nacional de Puertos S.A. (ENAPU) strictly complied with the legal provisions for cases of rehiring former workers who were dismissed in what was considered an irregular manner and, in accordance therewith, has gradually hired them back. In that regard, the State reports that of the 28 initial alleged victims, 20 had been hired back, and 19 of them were still working for the company.10 The State alleges that in accordance with the decision of the Ministry of Labor and Job Promotion, ENAPU had only to rehire persons on the list of workers dismissed irregularly, as was the case of the petitioners. 25. The State maintains that three petitioners in the original group of 28 were deceased and that “it had learned that two of the 28 petitioners (Juan Carlos Marraguerra Ayllon and Eduardo Rivadeneyra Alva) were residing abroad, which made it difficult to locate them and this meant that they did not necessarily need to be hired back”. 26. Based on these considerations, the State concludes that it has taken the legislative and administrative steps to address the complaints of the former workers from ENAPU, S.A. According to the State, the individuals that had not yet been rehired could opt for a measure not set forth under Law No. 27803 and, “therefore, as there were domestic remedies that had not been exhausted, the State considers that the complaint does not meet the admissibility requirements.” IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence of the Commission ratione materiae, ratione personae, ratione loci, and ratione temporis 27. Under Article 44 of the American Convention, the petitioners are authorized to lodge a complaint with the Commission. The petition names as alleged victims 25 individuals whose rights under the American Convention the Peruvian State had undertaken to respect and guarantee. 11 Peru has been a State Party to the 10 The State said that the resolution to rehire Alfredo Pio Vásquez Colacci was null and void because he was receiving a disability pension from the Office of Professional Standardization. 11 The petitioners initially identified 28 alleged victims. Subsequently the petitioners notified the Commission that three of the persons said they were not interested in proceeding with the processing of the case before the Commission (Cfr. Note 1). As a result, according to the lists submitted by the representatives for the victims, the IACHR notes that the petition names the following alleged victims: Víctor Acuña Dávila, Alberto Esteban Antonio Chala, Justo Esteban Azcárate Noguera, Abraham Cano Rebaza, Marco Antonio Castro Martinez, Gladis María Delgado Arriola, Rogelio Delgado Quijano, David Desiglioli Sánchez, Juan Leslie Espinoza Eyzaguirre, Jorge Federico García Farías, Carlos Alberto Lizarbe Nieto, Nancy Giomar Mac’Gregor Alvis, Juan Carlos Marraguerra Ayllon, Honorato Mayorga Blanco, Ernesto Meza Vargas, José Ricardo Nolasco Milla, Fernando Antonio Padilla Cancino, Cecilio Alberto Ríos Rodríguez, Eduardo 6