analyzed is the concept of reasonable time. 22 Consequently, the Commission determined that the petition had been presented within a reasonable time, taking into consideration “the continuing nature of the supposed enforced disappearance of Jeremías Osorio Rivera, the failure to elucidate his whereabouts, the failure to determine responsibilities, and the alleged denial of justice in the proceedings that were dismissed and in the one that is still underway.” 23 Accordingly, the preliminary objection filed by the State is rejected. B. Preliminary objection of alleged lack of competence ratione temporis of the Inter-American Court in relation to the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons B.1. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 24. The State argued that, in Merits Report No. 140/11, the Commission had considered that Peru was responsible for the violation of Articles I and III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons adopted by the General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS) on June 9, 1994. According to the State, this treaty was approved at the domestic level by a supreme decree published in the official gazette, El Peruano, on January 23, 2002, and the ratification document was deposited with the OAS General Secretariat on February 13, 2002. Therefore, according to Article XX of this Convention, it entered into force for the State on March 15, 2002. In this regard, the State affirmed that the Court is unable to exercise its contentious competence to declare a violation of the provisions of the said international instrument with regard to events prior to its entry into force for a specific State. Thus, the State maintained that, based on the acceptance of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction by the States and on the principle of nonretroactivity established in Article 28 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the said Inter-American Convention “cannot be applied to this case, because the facts alleged by the petitioners occurred as of April 28, 1991; in other words, before the Peruvian State had ratified the said Convention, and even before it had been approved by the States parties.” The State also argued that, if the Court did not accept this preliminary objection, for the said Convention to be applicable to this case, it would first have to be proved that an enforced disappearance occurred that had been committed by State agents or tolerated by them; however, “such an enforced disappearance did not happen in this case.” Consequently, the State asked the Court to declare a) the domestic legislation of the state concerned does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right or right that have allegedly been violated; b) the party alleging violation of his rights has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law or has been prevented from exhausting them, or c) there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 46. 22 Article 32 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure refer to the period for the presentation of petitions as follows: 1. The Commission shall consider those petitions that are lodged within a period of six-months following the date on which the alleged victim has been notified of the decision that exhausted the domestic remedies. 2. In those cases in which the exceptions to the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies are applicable, the petition shall be presented within a reasonable period of time, as determined by the Commission. For this purpose, the Commission shall consider the date on which the alleged violation of rights occurred and the circumstances of each case. 23 Admissibility Report No. 76/10, Case of 11,845, Jeremías Osorio Rivera and others, Peru, July 12, 2010, para. 33 (file of proceedings before the Commission, volume I, folios 7 to 15). 12