58. The State alleges that this resolution was appealed at secondary level by the Prosecutor assigned to the case and by the alleged victim. The State claims that on August 23, 2006, the First Criminal Court of the Superior Court of Justice of La Paz issued Resolution 514/2006 confirming the extinguishment of the public criminal proceedings. 59. The State claims that in accordance with Article 19, paragraph 2 of the Political Constitution, I.V. had the power to file an action for enforcement of constitutional rights (recurso de amparo constitucional) because a final judgment existed that extinguished criminal proceedings. The State claims that the aforementioned article establishes that all persons may bring an extraordinary amparo (recurso extraodinario de amparo constitucional) against a Resolution, undue act or omission by an authority or officer whenever there exists no other medium or remedy for the immediate protection of rights and guarantees. 60. Based on the foregoing, the State alleges that the petition should be declared inadmissible because it claims that the petitioner did not exhaust the remedies available under domestic law because no use was made of the extraordinary constitutional appeal. IV. A. ANALYSIS Competence of the Commission ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis, ratione loci 61. The petitioner is empowered by Article 44 of the American Convention to lodge petitions on behalf of the alleged victim. The alleged victim in the case was within the jurisdiction of the Bolivian State on the date the events which are the subject of the petition took place. With regard to the State, the Commission notes that Bolivia has been a State party to the Convention since July 19, 1979, the date on which it deposited its instrument of ratification. Consequently, the Commission has competence ratione personae to examine this petition. 62. In addition, the Commission notes that Bolivia has been a State party to the Convention of Belém do Pará since December 5, 1994, the date on which it deposited its instrument of ratification. Consequently, the IACHR has competence ratione temporis to examine at the merits stage the alleged violations of this international instrument. 63. The Commission has competence ratione loci to examine the petition because it alleges violations of rights protected under the American Convention and the Convention of Belém do Pará, which took place within the territory of a State party to the Convention. 64. Furthermore, the Commission has competence ratione temporis because the obligation to respect and protect the rights enshrined in the American Convention and the Convention of Belém do Pará was already in force for the State at the date on which the violations of rights alleged in the petition took place. 65. Finally, the Commission has competence ratione materiae because the petition alleges violations of human rights enshrined in the American Convention and the Convention of Belém do Pará. B. Other requirements for admissibility 1. Exhaustion of remedies under domestic law 66. Article 46 of the American Convention states that for a petition lodged before the Commission to be admissible it is necessary that “the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law.” The purpose 10