53. The State explains that the evaluation and positive assessment without reinstatement made by the Interior Ministry’s Special Commission, the special ceremony of apology and vindication, the recalculation of his length of service, and the granting to the petitioner of a renewable retirement pension were made under Law 28805, which authorizes the reinstatement of officers, technicians, and noncommissioned members of the Peruvian Armed Forces and National Police. The State emphasizes that Mr. Zegarra Marín was not reinstated because he had exceeded the age limit. IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence 1. Competence of the Commission ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione temporis, and ratione materiae 54. The petitioner is entitled, under Article 44 of the Convention, to submit complaints on his own behalf. The alleged victim in the case was under the jurisdiction of the Peruvian State at the time of the alleged incidents. In addition, the State of Peru ratified the American Convention on July 28, 1978. Consequently, the Commission has competence ratione personae to examine the petition. 55. The Commission has competence ratione loci to deal with the petition since it alleges violations of rights protected by the American Convention occurring within the territory of a State Party thereto. 56. In addition, the Commission has competence ratione temporis since the general obligation of respecting and ensuring the rights protected by the American Convention was already in force for the State on the date on which the incidents described in the petition allegedly occurred. 57. Finally, the Commission has competence ratione materiae, since the petition describes alleged violations of human rights that are protected by the American Convention. B. Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies 58. Article 46.1.a of the American Convention states that for a complaint lodged with the InterAmerican Commission in compliance with Article 44 of the Convention to be admissible, the remedies available under domestic law must have first been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. That requirement is intended to facilitate the domestic authorities’ examination of the alleged violation of a protected right and, if appropriate, to enable them to resolve it before it is brought before an international venue. 59. The Peruvian State claims that the petitioner did not exhaust the available domestic remedies, in that he did not request his reinstatement in the PNP following his forced retirement. In turn, the petitioner claims he filed appeals against his conviction and against the resolution whereby he was retired from duty. The petitioner further reports that he later filed charges for the crime of perverting the course of justice against the judges who convicted him. 60. As the Commission sees it, the petitioner describes three different incidents that, in his opinion, constituted violations of his rights: (i) his arrest for more than eight months during his criminal trial; (ii) the decision to retire him on staff renewal grounds; and (iii) the inversion of the burden of proof regarding his guilt and his ensuing conviction. 61. Regarding the first of these points, the information available indicates that when the petition was presented, Mr. Zegarra Marín was no longer in prison, since an order was adopted during the proceedings declaring his preventive custody inadmissible. Thus, that aspect of the petition 7