against the Jinotega Departmental Prosecutor or the forensic physician who handled the case of the minor child V.R.P., the State indicates that “they do not exist, or at least they were not lodged with the competent authority.”30 35. With regard to exhaustion of domestic remedies, in its initial observations on the petition, the State indicated that these were exhausted by petitioner through the motion to vacate the verdict of the Jury Court, which was processed in accordance with the law and the order to disallow was issued.31 However, in a subsequent communication, of February 14, 2005, the State indicates that domestic remedies have not been exhausted because a final disposition has not been made of the motion to vacate the Jury Court’s acquittal of the accused. It adds that if the case is resolved unfavorably to V.R.P., the State will appeal as appropriate in accordance with the available legal remedies. IV. ANALYSIS A. Competence of the Commission ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis, and ratione loci 36. Under Article 44 of the American Convention, the petitioner is entitled to present petitions to the Commission. The petition names as the alleged victim the child V.R.P. and her mother V.P.C., whose rights enshrined in the American Convention Nicaragua undertook to respect and guarantee. With regard to the State, Nicaragua has been a Party to the American Convention since September 25, 1979, the date of deposit of its respective instrument of ratification, and has also been Party to the Convention of Belém do Pará since December 12, 1995. Therefore, the Commission has competence ratione personae to consider the petition. 37. The Commission has competence ratione loci to consider the petition as in it are alleged violations of rights protected in the American Convention and the Convention of Belém do Pará that occurred within the territory of Nicaragua, a State Party to said treaties. The InterAmerican Commission also has competence ratione temporis since the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected in the American Convention and the Convention of Belém do Pará were in force for the State on the date that the facts alleged in the petition occurred. 30 Note from the State of June 29, 2007, MRE/DGOI/1570/06/07. 31 Note from the State of February 9, 2005, MRE/DM-DGOI/196/02/05. 12