40. The State also notes that because the judicial remedies pursued by petitioners were declared inadmissible, the Committee on Foreign Investment was never made aware of them. 41.With respect to the petitioners' argument about the violation of the Right to Participate in Government protected in Article 23 of the American Convention, the State notes that this article protects the right to "take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives" (emphasis added). 2. Arguments regarding exhaustion of domestic remedies 42. The State argues that the definition of "remedies" is broad enough to include remedies that are legislative or administrative in addition to judicial.Thus, the State argues that the victims should have attempted to utilize the recurso de fiscalización. This is a legislative remedy whereby any representative in Chile's Cámara de Diputados may request background information from the government ("solicitar antecedentes al gobierno"), with a vote of one third of the members present in the Cámara. The government maintains that this measure was possible in this case because one of the petitioners is a representative in the Cámara de Diputados. The State also lists statements by the petitioners that appeared in the press, reporting that they were planning to request the initiation of a recurso de fiscalización before seeking a remedy in the courts. 43. The State also claims that there were administrative remedies open to the petitioners. Specifically, the State argues that the recurso de reposición administrativa established by Article 9 of Chilean Law Nº 18.575 was never utilized. IV. ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUE OF ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence of the Commission 44. The petitioners have locus standi to submit petitions to the IACHR, in accordance with Article 44 of the Convention. The petitions identify as purported victims individual persons, whose rights under the Convention Chile is committed to respect and ensure. The Commission notes that Chile is a State party to the American Convention, having ratified it on August 21, 1990. The Commission therefore has competence ratione personae to study the petition. The Commission has competence ratione loci to take cognizance of this petition since it alleges violations of rights guaranteed by the American Convention that purportedly occurred in the territory of a State party. 45. The Commission has competence ratione temporis, since the events alleged in the petition took place at a time when the duty to respect and ensure the rights enshrined in the Convention was in force for the State. 46. Finally, the Commission has competence ratione materiae, since the petition alleges violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. B. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 47. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention states: