State party to that treaty. The IACHR has ratione temporis competence, because the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected in the American Convention was in force for the State at the time of the facts alleged in the petition. The Commission also has ratione materiae in this case, because the petition alleges facts that could tend to establish a violation of rights protected by the American Convention. B. Requirements for Admissibility 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 33. Article 46.1.a of the American Convention stipulates that remedies under domestic law must have been exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law as a requirement for the admission of petitions concerning alleged violations of the American Convention. 34. The Commission observes that both parties agree that the applicable legal framework, specifically Article 45 of the Law of Prosecution, does not admit comprehensive review of a decision to dismiss a judge by a Jury for Prosecution. Nevertheless, they indicate that jurisprudence has demonstrated the possibility of challenging that decision if there are allegations of violation of due process. 35. The Commission notes that Mr. Rico filed a special appeal for nullification with the Provincial Supreme Court to challenge the decision of the Jury for Prosecution, but the Court ruled that it would not be competent to review decisions of the Jury for Prosecution under the terms of Article 45 of the Law of Prosecution. To challenge this decision, he filed a special federal appeal with the same Court, which rejected it on the grounds that Mr. Rico’s arguments referred only to “a discrepancy with persons on the sentencing tribunal,” and that he did not document in “clear, unequivocal, and conclusive” form a serious violation of due process. Finally, the alleged victim filed a complaint motion against this decision, which was decided by the Federal Supreme Court, which ruled that Mr. Rico disagreed with “the evaluation of evidence and [maintained] that the Jury for Prosecution [should have] disregarded the evidence it had and [taken] into account that which it rejected.” With respect to allegations of violations of due process, the Court said that the case files did not “prove the existence of a violation of Article 18 of the Federal Constitution,” which contains specific due process guarantees; and also failed to demonstrate in “a clear, unequivocal, and conclusive manner the violation of the constitutional guarantees invoked.” 36. The IACHR notes that the alleged violations cited by the petitioners are based on alleged violations of due process and the impossibility of having the decision fully reviewed. Taking into account that the requirement for prior exhaustion of domestic remedies is intended to give national authorities an opportunity to be aware of the alleged violation of a protected right and, if appropriate, to resolve the situation before it is referred to an international organ, the Commission notes that various judicial entities of the State had the opportunity to hear the alleged victim’s arguments concerning his request for a comprehensive review of the sentence and the rest of the alleged violations of due process. 37. In view of the foregoing, the Commission considers that the petitioner has complied with exhaustion of domestic remedies pursuant to Article 46.1.a of the American Convention with respect to challenging his dismissal. 38. With respect to the appeal of the amount of court costs established by the Jury for Prosecution, initially the State said that the alleged victim had not exhausted domestic remedies because this compliant was lodged before the IACHR while the special federal appeal was still pending. After the State’s response, the petitioners said that this appeal had been rejected, along with the complaint motion that was subsequently filed. In subsequent submissions to the IACHR, the State did not call into question the exhaustion of remedies in this regard nor did not indicate other resources that should have been exhausted. On this matter, the IACHR reiterates its doctrine that the analysis of the requirements established in Articles 46 and 47 of the Convention should be done in the light of the situation prevailing when it rules on the