foregoing, the State points out that the Prosecutors Office,, in accordance with internal regulations and adhering to the principle of objectivity, requested that the investigation be closed. The State adds that the relatives of the alleged victim did not become joint plaintiffs in the process although, according to the State, they had the opportunity to do so. Furthermore, the State argues, had the relatives done so when the Public Ministry prosecutor filed for “dismissal,” they could have exercised the right established in Article 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, objecting to the prosecutor’s petition. The State points out that the investigation finally concluded when the judge ordered the case closed. 27.With regard to reparation, the State argues that under domestic legislation in force at the time the petition was lodged with the IACHR, the deadline to execute that action had not yet been established. The State adds that to seek compensation before the Inter-American Commission without first having filed a petition for domestic remedy to claim reparation for loss and damages would imply using the system as a fourth instance, and violate the provisions of Article 31 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission. Based on the foregoing, the State considers that in accordance with Article 46.1 of the American Convention and Article 31 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission, the petition must be declared inadmissible because domestic remedies have not been exhausted. 28.Regarding the admissibility of the petition, the State, based on the foregoing, concludes by requesting that the IACHR declare the petition inadmissible, alleging that the petitioners must exhaust the remedies provided for in the domestic legislation and not use international mechanisms as an alternative. IV. ANALYSIS A. Competence ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione temporis andratione materiae of the Inter-American Commission 29.The petitioners are authorized by Article 44 of the American Convention to lodge petitions before the IACHR. The petition identifies an individual as the alleged victim, whose rights, enshrined in the American Convention and in other international instruments, the Guatemalan State has vowed to protect and guarantee. Therefore, the IACHR has competence ratione personae to examine the petition. 30.The Commission is also competent ratione loci to hear the petition, given that the complaint alleges violations of rights protected under the American Convention that presumably took place within the territory of a State Party to that treaty. The IACHR is competent ratione temporis to examine the claim based on the fact that Guatemala ratified the American Convention on May 25, 1978, and, thus, the obligation of the State to respect and guarantee the rights protected under the American Convention was already in force at the time in which the facts alleged in the petition occurred. 31.The Commission is competent ratione materiae, because the petition alleges violations of human rights protected by the American Convention on Human Rights. B. Other requirements for the admissibility of the petition 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 32.Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention provides that, for a complaint lodged with the Inter-American Commission in accordance with Article 44 of the Convention to be admissible, it is necessary that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. 4 The purpose of this 4 See IA Court HR, Case Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. Preliminary Exception, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment dated November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 16; IA Court HR, Case Nogueira de Carvalho et al... Preliminary Exceptions and Merits. Judgment dated November 28, 2006. Series C No 161, para. 50;IA Court HR., Case 6