17. The petitioners are authorized by Article 44 of the American Convention to present complaints to the IACHR. The petition in this matter indicates as alleged victims individual persons with respect to whom Chile undertook to respect and ensure the rights enshrined in the American Convention.4 As regards the State, the Commission notes that Chile has been a party to the American Convention since August 21, 1990, when it deposited the instrument of ratification. Therefore, the Commission is competent ratione personae to examine the petition. 18. The Commission is competent ratione loci to hear the petition, as it alleges violations of rights protected in the American Convention alleged to have occurred in the territory of a State party to that treaty. In addition, the IACHR is competent ratione temporis as the obligation to respect and ensure the rights protected in the American Convention was already in force for the State as of the date of the events alleged in the petition. Finally, the Commission is competent ratione materiae, since the petition alleges violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. B. Other admissibility requirements of the petition a. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 19. As arises from the positions summarized above, there is disagreement between the parties on the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies, requiring the Commission to rule as to whether that requirement has been met. 20. It has been seen that the Chilean naval authorities began two proceedings against Mr. Palamara Iribarne: Case No. 464 for disobedience of military duties, and case No. 471 for desacato. The original complaint submitted to the Inter-American Commission referred exclusively to the facts related to the proceeding on desacato, although it mentioned the other proceeding--then pending--as part of the context of harassment against Mr. Palamara Iribarne. On March 24, 1998, the petitioners filed a supplementary brief to include the facts related to the conviction of Mr. Palamara Iribarne, once the judgment of the Supreme Court in case No. 464 was final. 21. Furthermore, the representatives of Mr. Palamara Iribarne recurred to the Chilean courts to seek protection of his constitutional guarantees. The petitioners allege in that connection: Together with the development of the proceeding and while Palamara was held in preventive detention, he and his family were notified that they had to leave the subsidized housing that they were using within one week. At the same time, Mr. Palamara’s wife, Anne Ellen Stewart Orlandini, in early March filed a constitutional motion for protection (recurso de protección) (roll number 10-93) for the purpose of securing the return of the books seized and to put an end to the disturbances of her psychological integrity, and that of her family, stemming from the proceedings in the case brought against her husband; said motion was dismissed March 24, 1993.5 22. The petition refers, in essence, to Mr. Palamara Iribarne’s right to publish a book on ethics and military intelligence, and to the judicial guarantees that should be observed to make a determination, before Chilean judicial organs, as to the alleged violation of that right. The petitioners’ initial allusion to case No. 464 for disobedience of military duties is made for the evident purpose of explaining the factual context. 6 Therefore, the IACHR shall proceed to analyze the judicial proceedings in case No. 471 for desacato against Mr. Palamara Iribarne in 4 The Chilean State ratified the American Convention on August 21, 1990. Communication from petitioners of January 12, 1996, p. 4. 6 The complaint of January 12, 1996 contains a title “Context in which the events giving rise to the present complaint took place,” under which is found information on the proceeding initiated by the Naval Court of Magallanes as case 464. The following title is “Events giving rise to this complaint,” and it begins with the description of case 471 fordesacato. 5 4