“passive” in the face of the prosecution against him and thereby effectively “acquiesced” with respect to his procedural situation. The State indicated that Mr. Grande was only detained for 14 days, and that he never filed a judicial complaint or produced any proof that he was subjected to abuse during that period. The State maintained that it was precisely in observance of the principle of the presumption of innocence that the charges against him were definitively dismissed due to the improbability of finding additional proof against him. 30. With respect to Mr. Grande’s unsuccessful attempt to seek compensation through the courts, the State contended that his petition before the Commission simply manifests his disagreement with the decision of a competent court taken within the scope of its jurisdiction. Accordingly, the State maintained that the petition seeks to have the Commission substitute its judgment for that of the Argentine courts on matters of internal law, and as such, falls outside the Commission’s competence. 31. The State affirmed that Mr. Grande enjoyed full access to judicial remedies, and has set forth no facts tending to demonstrate a violation of his right to due process. The State further indicated that the alleged violation of the right to compensation under Article 10 of the American Convention is inadmissible. The State noted that this Article refers to the right to compensation for a final sentence issued due to judicial error, while there was no such final sentence issued against Mr. Grande, but only the definitive dismissal of all charges against him. IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence of the Commission ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis and ratione loci 32. The Commission is competent to examine the petition in question. In accordance with the terms of Article 44 of the American Convention, the petitioners have standing to present a claim before the Commission. The petition under study indicates that the alleged victim was subject to the jurisdiction of the Argentine State at the time of the alleged facts. Argentina has been a member State of the Organization of American States since its ratification of the OAS Charter in 1948, and as such subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission in respect of individual complaints since that competence was established by statute in 1965 with reference to the terms of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (hereinafter “American Declaration”). Argentina has been subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction under the terms of the American Convention since it deposited its instrument of ratification on September 5, 1984. Accordingly, the Commission has the competence ratione personae to examine the claims presented. 33. Insofar as the petition raises complaints concerning rights set forth in the American Convention, namely Articles 8 and 10, the Commission has the competence ratione materiae to review it. 34. The State argues that the present petition is inadmissible ratione temporis because the initial facts upon which it is predicated predate the entry into force of the American Convention for Argentina. With respect to those initial facts, as noted above, the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man sets forth the standards applicable to the Commission’s review. For any member State that has yet to ratify the American Convention, the fundamental rights it undertakes to uphold as a Party to the OAS Charter are those set forth in the American Declaration, which constitutes a source of international obligation.1 The Commission’s Statute and Rules of Procedure provide additional norms concerning the exercise of its jurisdiction in this regard. That jurisdiction was in effect at the time of the first facts alleged by the petitioners, and the Declaration, like the Convention, protects the right to due process (Articles XVII and XVIII) 1 IACtHR, Advisory Opinion OC-10/89, July 14, 1989, "Interpretation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man within the Framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights," Ser. A Nº 10, paras. 43 - 46. 6