13 58. The State also believed that it had not transgressed Article 26 of the Convention, inasmuch as Venezuelan law sets forth criteria to provide monetary reparation to workers when they are dismissed, as well as payment of unemployment benefits as provided by the Organic Labor Law. The State considered the termination of the labor relationship to have taken place under a contractual clause that allowed it, and that it does not entail a violation of the workers’ rights or an abridgment of the guarantees protecting them, because it is not an obligation of the employer to maintain a life-long labor relationship with the employee. The State also underscored that contrary to the claim of the petitioners, the Protocol of San Salvador has not been ratified by it and, therefore, it is not in force as required by the nation’s Constitution. The State clarified that even though it has not ratified said treaty, Venezuela has fulfilled all of the obligations set forth therein and highlighted that the Venezuelan legal system has in reality developed precisely in such a way as to favor the rights of workers. 59. In addressing the alleged violations of Article 1.1 of the Convention, the State reiterated that the alleged victims were not discriminated against for political reasons or any reasons of another nature, but that they simply did not have the status of public officials and were subject to the Organic Labor Law. In this regard, it emphasized that the termination of the labor relationship under the contractual termination clause cannot be viewed as discriminatory. The State also believed that the “signature database was of an unofficial nature and the National Electoral Council did not announce the valid signatures and those that were subject to challenge until April 20, 2004,” and therefore, there cannot be a direct link between signing and termination from their jobs. 60. Based on the foregoing arguments, the Venezuelan State requests that the petition be found inadmissible on the grounds that it does not fulfill the requirements of Article 46.1.a and c and 47.b of the American Convention, and the exceptions set forth in Article 46.2 of the same instrument do not apply. The Venezuelan State also requests that it not be found responsible for the alleged violation of the rights enshrined in the American Convention. III. A. LEGAL ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY Competence of the Commission ratione materiae, ratione personae, ratione temporis and ratione loci 61. The petitioners are entitled under Article 44 of the Convention to lodge complaints before the Commission. The alleged victims are individuals, who were under the jurisdiction of the Venezuelan State at the time of the facts alleged in the petition. Moreover, Venezuela ratified the American Convention on August 9, 1977, when it deposited the instrument of ratification thereof. Consequently, the Commission is competent ratione personae to entertain the petition. 62. The Commission is competent ratione loci to examine the petition, inasmuch as violations of rights protected by the American Convention are alleged therein to have taken place within the territory of a State Party to the treaty. The IACHR is competent ratione temporis, because the obligations to respect and ensure the rights protected in the American Convention were in force on the State at the time when the supposed violations of the rights alleged in the petition occurred.