4 IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence Competence of the Commission ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione temporis and ratione materiae 17. Under Article 44 of the Convention the petitioner is entitled to file a complaint. The alleged victim is an individual who was under the jurisdiction of the Peruvian State at the time of the events in question. Furthermore, Peru ratified the American Convention on July 28, 1978. Consequently, the Commission is competent ratione personae to examine the petition. 18. The Commission is competent ratione loci to examine the petition, inasmuch as violations of rights protected by the American Convention are alleged therein which would have taken place within the territory of a State Party to said treaty. 19. Additionally, the Commission is competent ratione temporis to the extent that the obligation to respect and ensure the rights protected by the American Convention was binding upon the State on the date when the acts in the petition are alleged to have taken place. 20. Lastly, the Commission is competent ratione materiae because, as shall be explained hereunder, acts that could constitute violations of the rights protected by the American Convention are alleged in the petition. B. Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies 21. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention provides that for a petition filed with the Commission to be admissible in keeping with Article 44 of the Convention, it is necessary for domestic remedies to be pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. The purpose of this requirement is to make it possible for national authorities to hear cases on alleged violations of a protected right and, when appropriate, have the opportunity to resolve them before they are heard by an international body. 22. The instant petition alleges the violation of rights protected in the Convention stemming from the decision of the CNM to dismiss Mr. Héctor Fidel Cordero Bernal from his office of Interim Judge of the 4th Specialized Court for Criminal Matters of Huanuco. The petitioner and alleged victim noted that on September 6, 1996, he brought an action for constitutional relief (amparo), moving for Decision No 008-96-PCNM, which ordered his dismissal as a judge, to be set aside. The submissions indicate that on May 8, 1998 that action was found to be groundless at the highest appellate level of the Constitutional Court. The State filed an objection on the grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, claiming that prior to the filing of the claim with the IACHR, the alleged victim should have filed a reinstatement labor suit (demanda laboral de reposición) or a compliance action to compel fulfillment of the law (acción de cumplimiento). 23. In keeping with the IACHR Rules of Procedure and the legal precedent of the InterAmerican system, whenever a State alleges non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, it bears the burden of indicating what remedies should have been pursued and prove that they are “adequate” to remedy the alleged violation; in other words, that the function of those remedies within the national legal system is suitable to redress the alleged violations of human rights brought to the attention of the Inter-American system.