12 68. The State holds that the violations that gave rise to the original complaint had ceased with the annulment of the effects of the amnesty laws and the reopening of the proceedings against those responsible for the deeds, regardless of the fact that the proceeding continues against only one defendant and that the rest of the accused are in default. The State reasons, therefore, that the defects alleged by the petitioners have been remedied by the domestic courts in proceedings at the national level. In the final analysis, the State argues, to keep the case open in the international jurisdiction when proceedings are still underway in the domestic courts on the same matter constitutes a denial of the subsidiary and complementary nature of the inter-American system for protection of human rights. 69. The State is of the opinion that the petitioners failed from the outset to act in accordance with the subsidiary nature of the international protection system. It says that when the petitioners first took their case to the inter-American system for protection of human rights in July 1991 they had not exhausted the mechanisms provided under domestic jurisdiction, as required by Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention. The State reminds the IACHR that when the petitioners increased their original petition they failed in a timely manner to use the means that the American Convention provides for justifying non-fulfillment of the admissibility requirements stipulated in Article 46(2) of the Convention. The State mentions that while the petition was at a standstill before the IACHR for several years, in the domestic jurisdiction the situation in the proceedings against the authors of the alleged deeds went through different stages. The State considers that none of the exceptions contained in Article 46(2) of the American Convention applies to the instant case, given that due legal process exists under Peruvian domestic law to protect the rights that were allegedly violated, as is demonstrated by the judicial proceedings and investigations currently underway. 70. The State says that the fact that a final outcome has not been reached in the case is not reason enough to brand the State a promoter of impunity. The State holds that the rule of discretion of justice system operators, in particular judges, must be observed as a cornerstone of the principle of legitimacy of the judicial function of every sovereign State. The State argues that the Commission cannot take upon itself the functions of an appeals court in order to examine alleged errors of fact or law that local courts may have committed while acting within the scope of their jurisdiction. 71. As for the alleged destruction of evidence of the crimes by agents of the State and the threats of physical harm made to witnesses and relatives of the victims, the State says that these allegations have not been proved and that, in any case, they refer to a different political situation which Peru has since overcome. IV. ANALYSIS A. Competence of the Commission Ratione Materiae, Ratione Personae, Ratione Temporis, and Ratione Loci 72. The petitioners have standing under Article 44 of the American Convention to lodge petitions with the IACHR. The petition names as alleged victims individuals on whose behalf the Peruvian State undertook to observe and ensure the rights enshrined in the American Convention. As regards the State, the Commission notes that Peru has been a party to the American Convention since July 28, 1978, when it deposited its instrument of ratification. Thus, the Commission has ratione personae competence to examine the petition. 73. The Commission is competent ratione loci to examine the petition because it alleges violations of rights protected in the American Convention that are purported to have occurred within the territory of Peru, a State party to said treaty. 74. The Commission is competent ratione temporis because the obligation to observe and ensure the rights protected in the American Convention was already binding upon the State at the time the events described in the petition are alleged to have occurred.