III JURISDICTION 13. The Court is competent to hear the instant case pursuant to article 62(3) of the Convention, as Chile has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights since August 21, 1990, and recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on the same date. IV Preliminary Objection 14. The State filed one preliminary objection for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, which will be examined below. A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 15. The State argued that, under the terms of legislation in force at the time of the events, the enforcement of labor judgments was regulated by articles 433ff and cross-references in the Labor Code,12 which required an ancillary procedure in a court of law that would hand down a decision within 60 days from the time the verdict had become enforceable. It argued that not all the alleged victims in the thirteen processes included in the instant case had exhausted domestic remedies as they sought enforcement of the convictions handed down in their favor. 16. More specifically, it first pointed to three of the cases13 and claimed that “the applicants did not initiate any compliance actions at all within the time limits required under labor laws in effect at the time, and having lodged a time-barred motion to do so, did not avail themselves of any of the ordinary remedies available to challenge or request a review of the decision by the court that had refused compliance.” It then argued, regarding five other cases,14 that “the applicants failed to avail themselves of any of the actions they could have used to contest the refusal of the mayors to sign the mayoral executive order for payment of the debt or regarding the payment itself, or to challenge the court order concerning the particular [mayor’s] expression of this refusal at trial.” According to the State, a motion for reconsideration and, more generally, an appeal for constitutional relief were both applicable in these processes. 17. The State also addressed the claim of exception to the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies contained in Article 46(2) of the Convention, arguing that given the failure by the alleged victims to lodge regular remedies that were available and effective for guaranteeing compliance, it could not be held that the delay of over twenty years in compliance with the judgments was unjustified or could be attributed to the State. It therefore requested that the procedural requirement to exhaust domestic remedies be declared unmet for the applicants attached to the eight cases listed above. 12 Art. 433. “In labor cases, the execution of judicial decisions shall be subject to the provisions of chapter XIX of Book I of the Civil Procedural Code, with the following amendments: the ancillary proceedings set forth in articles 233 and following of the Civil Procedural Code may be undertaken so long as they appeal to the originating trial court and seek compliance with a judgment, within 60 days of the time the decision became enforceable.” 13 Cases of Aguilar Lazcano et al. v. the Municipality of Chanco, Docket No. 221-1993; Alegría Cancino et al. v. the Municipality of Pelluhue, Docket No. 218-1993 and Aravena Espinoza et al. v. the Municipality of Pelluhue, Docket No. 222-1993. 14 Cases of Benavides Montaña et al. v. the Municipality of Chañaral, Docket No. 18.629-1994; Abarza Farías et al. v. the Municipality of Chanco, Docket No. 217-1993; Agurto Chein Juisan v. the Municipality of Cauquenes, Docket No. 63-1993; Barra Henríquez et al. v. the Municipality of Cauquenes, Docket No. 123-1993 and Aguilera Machuca et al. v. the Municipality of Cauquenes, Docket No. 38-1993. 7