judgment is the petitioners’ filing of a writ of amparo before the Constitutional Court, which was rejected on February 2, 1998. 20. In the third response from the State, received on November 29, 1999, the Attorney General informed the Commission that the Mediation Center of the Attorney General’s Office was available to attempt a friendly settlement in this case. The mediator appointed by the State was Dr. Alvaro Galindo Cardona. In its fourth response, dated January 24, 2001, the State raised the issue that internal remedies had not yet been exhausted, which was a sine qua non requisite for the Commission to declare a case admissible. The State also expressed its disposition to continue the dialogue in order to reach a friendly settlement of the matter. In its fifth and final response, dated September 6, 2001, the State reiterated that it had acted respecting the constitutional and legal norms of the State. It noted that since 1993 it had engaged in transactional arrangements with the owners of 50% of the land which is comprised within the limits of the Metropolitan Park. The Municipality, the response noted, is continuing to negotiate with the owners, and in the next few months it expected to consolidate the property of approximately 70% of the Park. As regards the instant case, the State concluded that the Municipality was still engaged in and interested in concluding negotiations with the petitioners. IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. The Commission’s competence ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione temporis, and ratione materiae 21. The petitioners are entitled to lodge petitions with the IACHR under Article 44 of the American Convention. The petition cites as alleged victims two persons on whose behalf Ecuador undertook to respect and ensure the rights recognized in the American Convention. Insofar as the State is concerned, the Commission finds that Ecuador has been a state party to the American Convention since December 28, 1977, when it deposited its respective instrument of ratification. Accordingly, the Commission has competence ratione personae to examine the petition. 22. The Commission has competence ratione loci to take up the petition because it claims violations of rights protected in the American Convention that allegedly took place in the territory of a state party to that treaty. 23. The Commission has competence ratione temporis inasmuch as the duty to respect and ensure the rights recognized in the American Convention was in force for the State at the time when the alleged violations contained in the petition are said to have occurred. 24. Finally, the Commission has competence ratione materiae because the petition alleges violations of human rights set forth in and protected by the American Convention. B. Other admissibility requirements for the petition a. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 25. The State raised the issue of the failure of the petitioners to exhaust domestic remedies in this case. According to the State, the petitioners only had administrative remedies available to challenge a declaration of public utility, due to article 794(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which expressly excludes judicial remedies. The petitioners filed a writ of amparowhich raised the issues presented in this case, specifically that the petitioners were denied the protections guaranteed by the Ecuadorian Constitution and by the international treaties that Ecuador is a party to, as regards the right not to be deprived of one’s property except upon payment of just compensation. The amparo was denied by the Constitutional Court of Ecuador on February 2, 1998. The petitioners also filed administrative remedies, yet according to the State, these 5