it is the recognition awarded by the competent body, in this case the CANG, for the purpose of authorizing a person to exercise said profession. It also maintains that the CANG never deprived Mr. Hendrix of his degree of Notary; rather, because of national legislation, it did not proceed with his qualification as a notary. 37. It states that the alleged victim was not deprived of the degrees conferred on him. As regards his qualification as a notary, the petitioner was informed that, owing to the special solemnity vested in the exercise of this profession in Guatemala, election of Guatemalan citizenship is a prerequisite and that upon meeting this requirement, he would be granted qualified notary status. 38. With respect to the right to a nationality, the State asserts that no violation has occurred, since he has not been arbitrarily deprived of his nationality, nor denied the right to change it. It states that the petitioner must comply with the requirement contained in Article 2 of the Code of the Notarial Profession if he wishes to exercise the profession of notary in Guatemala. 39. The State concludes by requesting that the instant case not be declared admissible, because there was no desire on the part of officers of the State to violate the rights of Steven Edward Hendrix. It reiterates its willingness to grant Mr. Hendrix full recognition as a notary on condition that he comply with the terms of the Court of Constitutionality and provide proof of acquisition of Guatemalan citizenship. III. A. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY Commission's competence ratione materiae, ratione personae, ratione temporis, and ratione loci 40. The petitioner is eligible to submit a petition to the Commission under Article 44 of the American Convention. In the instant case, the alleged victim is a person whose rights Guatemala has undertaken to ensure and respect. Therefore, the Commission has ratione personae competence to examine the complaint. 41. The Commission has ratione loci competence to consider the petition because it alleges that violations of rights protected by the American Convention took place under the jurisdiction of the State. The Commission has ratione temporis competence inasmuch as, at the time of the alleged violations, the obligation to respect and ensure the rights recognized in the American Convention was in force for the State of Guatemala, which ratified the American Convention on May 25, 1978. 42. The Commission has ratione materiae competence to consider the instant case because the petition alleges violations of human rights protected by the American Convention on Human Rights. It should be added that the IACHR does not have ratione materiae competence—in an autonomous manner—to establish violations of Articles 6 and 7 of the Protocol of San Salvador through the system of individual petitions. However, the Inter-American Commission may use said Protocol in interpreting other applicable provisions, in accordance with Articles 26 and 29 of the American Convention.3 B. 1. Other requirements for admissibility Exhaustion of domestic remedies 3 IACHR, Admissibility Report No. 29/01 of March 7, 2001, para. 36.