competence for the international normative function and, in the case of the Convention, its States Parties through an amendment to the Convention.40 II. THE ARTICLES OF THE CONVENTION A. Articles on the exhaustion of domestic remedies 21. The rule of the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies is contained in Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention, which indicates that: 1. Admission by the Commission of a petition or communication lodged in accordance with Articles 44 or 45 shall be subject to the following requirements: a. that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law.” 22. Meanwhile, Article 47(a) of the Convention adds that: “The Commission shall consider inadmissible any petition or communication submitted under Articles 44 or 45 if: a. any of the requirements indicated in Article 46 has not been met.” B. Grounds 22. The grounds for the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies in the inter-American human rights system is to be found in the third paragraph of the Preamble to the Convention which indicates that: “Recognizing that the essential rights of man are not derived from one's being a national of a certain state, but are based upon attributes of the human personality, and that they therefore justify international protection in the form of a convention reinforcing or complementing the protection provided by the domestic law of the American States.” C. The complementary or reinforcing nature of the inter-American protection 23. Having set out the grounds and the applicable norms, it is necessary to insist on the said rule of the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies and, consequently, that, in this case, “the international protection” of the inter-American human rights system is contemplated in the Convention as “reinforcing or complementing the protection provided by the domestic law of the American States” and, logically, this implies that the former does not replace the latter, among other reasons because, in relation to compliance with what the inter-American system ordains – at least in disputes involving the Commission and the petitioners on the one hand, and the State concerned on the other – this must always be complied with or executed by the latter.41 24. This means that the inter-American jurisdiction does not substitute or replace the domestic jurisdiction, it merely complements or reinforces the latter; that is, it contributes to or helps the latter re-establish, as soon as possible, the exercise of the human rights that are alleged to have been violated. In this regard, it should not be forgotten that it is the State 40 Supra, footnote 18. Art. 68 of the Convention: “1. The States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties. 2. That part of a judgment that stipulates compensatory damages may be executed in the country concerned in accordance with domestic procedure governing the execution of judgments against the State.” 41 8