very low and, therefore, the procedure would have to be performed multiple times to achieve pregnancy. It also indicated that the procedure established by the Superior Tribunal of Contentious Civil Treasury Matters is largely unsuccessful and carries a high embryonic loss rate9. 46. The State maintains that all the joined petitions were presented after the deadline, that is, beyond the period of six months, having been presented to the IACHR in 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007—various years, respectively, after the announcement of the final ruling on the matter10, which was issued on March 15, 2000, in judgment 2000-02306 of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica. IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence of the Commission ratione personæ, ratione loci, ratione temporis, and ratione materiæ 47. The petitioner is empowered by Article 44 of the American Convention to submit petitions to the Commission. The petition names as alleged victims 12 natural persons in respect of whom the Costa Rican State undertook to respect and guarantee the rights enshrined in the American Convention. Costa Rica has been a state party to the American Convention since April 8, 1970, when it deposited its instrument of ratification. Therefore the Commission is competent ratione personæ to hear the petition. 48. The Commission, further, is competent ratione loci to hear the petition, since it alleges violations of rights protected in the American Convention that are said to have taken place under the jurisdiction of the state party. The Commission is competent ratione temporis to examine the complaint because the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected in the American Convention was already in force for the State on the date on which the events described in the petition allegedly took place. Finally, the Commission is competent ratione materiæ, because the petition alleges possible violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. 49. Although the IACHR lacks competence ratione materiae under its system of individual petitions to rule on an individual case concerning the violations of Articles 1, 2, 3, 10, 14.1.b, and 18 of the Protocol of San Salvador alleged by the petitioner, the Commission, bearing in mind the provisions of Articles 26 and 29 of the American Convention, may consider the provisions of that Protocol in interpreting other applicable provisions of the American Convention and of other treaties in respect of which it does have competence ratione materiae11. Therefore the Inter-American Commission shall interpret the articles of the Protocol of San Salvador to the extent that this is relevant to its application of the American Convention 12. B. Other requirements for the admissibility of the petition 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 50. Article 46.1.a of the American Convention provides that, in order for a petition presented to the Inter-American Commission under Article 44 thereof to be admissible, the remedies available under domestic law must have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. The purpose of this requirement is to allow the national authorities to consider the alleged violation of a protected right and, if IACHR, public hearing before the IACHR on the petitions and on case 12.361, held on October 28, 2008, during the 133rd regular period of sessions. See at: http://www.IACHR.oas.org/prensa/publichearings/advanced.aspx?Lang=ES. 10 Communication from the State, dated May 14, 2007. 11 See IACHR, Report No. 44/04, Laura Tena Colunga et al. (Inadmissibility), Mexico, October 13, 2004, paragraphs 3340; IACHR, Jorge Odir Miranda Cortez et al. (Admissibility), El Salvador, Case 12.249, Report no. 29/01, paragraph 36. 12 Article 19.6 of the Protocol of San Salvador provides as follows: “Any instance in which the rights established in paragraph a) of Article 8 and in Article 13 are violated by action directly attributable to a State Party to this Protocol may give rise, through participation of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and, when applicable, of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, to application of the system of individual petitions governed by Article 44 through 51 and 61 through 69 of the American Convention on Human Rights.” 9 7