11 State itself, the Commission notes that Chile has been a state party to the Convention since August 21, 1990, when it deposited its instrument of ratification. Therefore, the Commission is competent ratione personae to examine the petition. 28. The Commission has competence ratione loci to examine the petition since the latter alleges violations of rights protected under the American Convention which took place within the territory of a State party thereto. The IACHR is competent ratione temporis insofar as the obligation to respect and ensure the rights protected in the American Convention had already entered into force for the State as of the date that the facts alleged in the petition, which concern purported noncompliance with court decisions issued after the Convention’s entry into force, are said to have occurred. Finally, the Commission has competence ratione materiae because the petition alleges violations of human rights enshrined in the American Convention. B. Other requirements for the admissibility of the petition 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 29. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention provides that admission of petitions lodged with the Inter-American Commission in keeping with Article 44 of the Convention shall be subject to the requirement that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. The purpose of this rule is to ensure that the State in question has the possibility to resolve disputes within its own legal framework. 30. The rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies refers to the judicial remedies that are available, suitable and able to provide an effective solution for the alleged violation of human rights. The Convention itself recognizes that this provision doe not apply when domestic remedies are not available for de facto or de jure reasons. More specifically, Article 46(2) establishes exceptions to the general rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies: a) when the domestic legislation of the State concerned does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right or rights that have allegedly been violated; b) if 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) if there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment 31. The petitioners argue that the responsibility to pay the amounts ordered by the court ruling belongs to the municipalities and the Chilean State. The petitioners hold that the decisions are enforceable, not de término and that under the Code of Civil Procedure, it is up to the judge presiding over the case to order the appropriate measures for said enforcement. 32. In their additional observations, the petitioners said that the remedies of cassation and reconsideration of dismissal of appeal noted by the state are special remedies admissible only against final or interlocutory judgments that put an end to a suit or make it impossible to continue. They add that, for their part, the purpose of the regular remedies of reversal and appeal is to change a judicial decision, but they are not effective, according to the petitioners, for redressing the municipalities’ disobedience of the order issued by the tribunal. In addition, the petitioners argue, with respect to the action of constitutional guarantee or protection, that domestic practice appears to show that said action is not appropriate in the case of judicial decisions.