juridical certainty and clarity, but also to focus the parties’ attention on the key issues those cases entail.1 A. The Commission’s competence ratione personae, ratione temporis, and ratione materiae 28. The Commission has active and passive ratione personae competence (i.e., competence vis-à-vis the persons involved) to hear this case in that, first, the petitioner alleges that a state party thereto-specifically, Argentina2--violated provisions of the Convention and the Declaration, affecting Ms. Perrone and Mr. Preckel, the presumed victims of said violations. 29. Secondly, as regards ratione temporis competence (i.e., in terms of when the incidents occurred), the Commission notes that the petitioner expressly excludes from the substance of the petition the deprivation of freedom and the cruel and inhuman treatments that began during the 1970s, since they were covered by the benefits that the alleged victims received under Law 24.043. Neither does the petition cover the General Tax Directorate’s 1983 decision that ruled that Perrone and Preckel were not liable in the administrative proceedings. 30. However, the petitioner’s complaint does cover the decisions by the Ministry of the Economy that rejected the claims made by the two in 1987. In addition, the petitioner notes that the complaint before the Commission also covers the subsequent judicial rulings of the firstinstance court and the national contentious-administrative appeals chamber. The Commission notes that the aforesaid decisions were handed down after the Convention had come into force for Argentina and, consequently, they will be examined as alleged violations of the Convention. 31. Thirdly, as regards ratione materiae competence (i.e., vis-àvis the substantive issues of the case), the petition alleges violations of the right to a fair trial (Article 8 of the Convention), to property (Article 21), and to equality before the law (Article 24), as well as of the obligation of respecting those rights and of adopting domestic legal provisions (Articles 1 and 2). Similarly, the petitioner claims there were violations of the right to work and fair remuneration (Article XIV), to the 1 See, inter alia, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Annual Report 1998, Report Nº 49/97, Case 11.520, Tomás Porfirio Rondín et al., “Aguas Blancas” (Mexico), OEA/Ser/L/V/II.98, February 18, 1998, paragraph 50, p. 8. 2 Argentina deposited its instrument ratifying the Convention at the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States on September 5, 1984. 9