A. Competence of the Commission ratione personae, ratione materiae,ratione temporis, and ratione loci 50. Under Article 44 of the American Convention and Article 23 of the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR, the petitioners do have standing to lodge complaints with the Commission regarding alleged violations of the rights established in the American Convention. As for the State, Chile is a party to the Convention and must therefore respond in the international arena to violations of that instrument. The alleged victims are natural persons whose State has undertaken to guarantee the rights established in the Convention. Based on all of the foregoing, the InterAmerican Commission is competent ratione personae to examine petition. 51. The IACHR is competent ratione materiae since the petition alleges violations of the human rights protected by the American Convention. Likewise, it is competent rationetemporis as the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected in the American Convention was in force for the State on the date when the acts mentioned in the petition are alleged to have occurred, since Chile ratified the American Convention on August 21, 1990. Finally, the InterAmerican Commission is competent ratione loci to examine the petition because it alleges violations of rights protected in the American Convention having occurred within the territory of a State Party to said instrument. B. Admissibility Requirements 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 52. Article 46.1.a of the Convention establishes that one of the requirements for admission of a petition is “that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law.” 53. From the information submitted by the parties, the Commission observes that in the present petition all domestic remedies have been exhausted. Indeed, on December 15, 2003 the Supreme Court denied the appeal filed by Mr. Norín and Mr. Pichún’s defense team, which was based on procedural violations in the judgment of conviction that was issued from their second trial on September 27, 2003. 54. Under Article 387 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the decision ruling on a procedural appeal is not subject to any further remedy, without prejudice to review of the final judgment of conviction. Nor is any further remedy possible for a judgment issued in a new trial that is held as the result of the granting of an appeal based on procedural violations. However, the rule adds that if the judgment is one of conviction while the vacated judgment had been one of acquittal, a procedural appeal on behalf of the defendant is in order. 55. The Commission verifies that the remedies provided for in Chilean legislation for such cases have been exhausted, and that therefore the petition examined meets the requirement established in Article 46.1.a of the Convention. 2. Time period for lodging a petition 56. Article 46.1.b of the American Convention establishes that one of the requirements for admission of a petition is that it be “lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the party alleging violation of his rights was notified of the final judgment.” 57. However, the Convention’s requirements for exhaustion of domestic remedies and for lodging the petition within six months of notification of the final judgment are independent. Therefore, The Inter-American Commission must determine if the petition being examined was lodged within a reasonable time frame. The first communication from the petitioners which served as the basis to begin processing in the Commission was received on August 15, 2003, 10