the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected in the American Convention were already in force for the State on the date on which the facts alleged in the petition reportedly occurred. The Commission also has ratione loci to adjudicate the petition because the alleged violations of rights protected in the American Convention reportedly took place within the territory of a State Party to that instrument. B. Admissibility requirements 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 28. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention provides that, in order for a complaint lodged before the Inter-American Commission to be admissible under Article 44 of the Convention, the remedies 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 have knowledge of the alleged violation of a protected right and, if appropriate, have the opportunity to resolve the matter before it is heard by an international body. 29. In the instant case, the petitioners stated that the judgment of the Third Division of the Supreme Court of Costa Rica, which decided the petition for cassation [recurso de casación] on December 20, 2007, exhausted the domestic remedies, since that judgment is not subject to any ordinary appeals under the national laws. They note that under Article 30 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Act of Costa Rica (Law 7135) no appeal for constitutional relief [amparo] is admissible: “(b) Against court decisions and proceedings of the Judiciary.”1 30. The State acknowledged that the alleged victims had exhausted the remedies available under Costa Rican law to challenge the penalty imposed against them by the court. The IACHR is of the opinion that this point is not in dispute. 31. Nevertheless, the IACHR notes that the State objected to the admissibility of this petition on the grounds that the arguments now being made before the Inter-American Human Rights System were not asserted at the appropriate time before the Costa Rican courts, which prevented them from issuing any rulings with respect thereto. 32. The Inter-American Commission has held, on other occasions, that if the petitioners claim to have exhausted the domestic remedies, the complaint alleging the violation of the American Convention lodged before the IACHR should have been heard and decided by the national courts,2 at least implicitly under the applicable national laws. This guarantees that the State has the opportunity to remedy the alleged violation before it is heard by the bodies of the Inter-American System. 33. In the instant matter, the IACHR finds that there is a reasonable coincidence between the object of the proceeding that was exhausted at the domestic level and the claim submitted by the petitioners before this supervisory body, which concerns the imposition of subsequent liability against the alleged victims for the good faith publication of information confirmed by a government source that offends the personal rights of a public servant and that was inaccurate. The IACHR observes that in the domestic proceedings the courts had the opportunity to rule on the conflict between the fundamental rights that are at odds with each other in this case and on the criteria for resolving that tension—including the degree of diligence and accuracy required of a journalist to avoid subsequent liability—and they did in fact do so, as evidenced by the court decisions on record in the case file. It bears repeating that, for purposes of the admissibility of a petition, it is enough for the substance of the complaint lodged before the IACHR to have been examined at the domestic level. 34. Therefore, the Commission finds that the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies has been satisfied in accordance with Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention. 1 Article 30 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Act of Costa Rica establishes that “An appeal for constitutional relief [amparo] shall not be admissible: […] (b) Against court decisions and proceedings of the Judiciary.” 2 See IACHR, Report No. 67/01, Tomás Enrique Carvallo Quintana (Argentina), June 14, 2001, para. 56