support the petitioners’ allegations could not be construed as a violation of the right to judicial protection. The State also pointed out that the petitioners had not offered arguments with regard to the supposed violation of the right of equality before the law. 52. Finally, the State described its position regarding the internal controversy between the SUNAT and the association, indicating that the ruling of October 25, 1993, did not mean, as the petitioners pretended, that the adjustment of pensions must be achieved using as point of reference the salaries perceived by active employees under the private labor system who were not part of the civil service system and were, therefore, outside the pension system established under Decree Law No. 20.530. The State in effect pointed out that Article 3.c of Decree Law No. 673, established that the higher salaries received by employees as a result of the modifications to the employment system of the SUNAT, could not be used to determine retirement pensions for those employees covered by the pension system established by Decree Law No. 20.530. IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence 1. Competence ratione personae, ratione temporis and ratione materiae of the Commission loci, ratione 53. The petitioners are authorized by Article 44 of the American Convention to lodge petitions on behalf of the alleged victims. The alleged victims in this case were under the jurisdiction of the Peruvian State from the moment the alleged facts began to be executed. For its part, the Peruvian State ratified the American Convention on July 28, 1978. Therefore, the Commission has competence ratione personae to examine the petition.4 54. The Commission is competent ratione loci to hear the petition, because it alleges violations of rights protected by the American Convention that were said to have taken place within the territory of a State party to that treaty. 55. The Commission is also competent ratione temporis because the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected by 4 The alleged victims, identified before the IACHR, are named on Annex No. 1 of this report. 19