Mr. Ramírez perpetrated a crime that the courts classified as murder. In addition, the Government points out that the Sentencing Court is not required to state the grounds for all the aggravating circumstances, since even if only one is involved, and in consideration of the nature and circumstances of the crime, it is empowered to impose the penalty. Finally, it notes that the Court did rule the following aggravating circumstances as being present: treachery, notorious premeditation, abuse of superiority, remote location, and contempt toward the victim. 23. As regards the right to judicial protection, the State claims that from the remedies and suits exhausted by the petitioners it can be concluded that Mr. Ramírez was given suitable legal means for taking the case against him to the higher courts and that none of those remedies found any evidence of such a violation. 24. For the reasons given above, the State holds that there were no violations of due process, the right to a fair trial, or the judicial guarantees enshrined in the Convention as a result of which it could be ruled responsible for violating Mr. Ramirez’s right to life. IV. ANALYSIS 25. The Commission will now analyze the admissibility requirements set forth in the American Convention. A. Competence of the Commission 26. The Commission has competence ratione materiae to hear this petition since it alleges violations of rights protected by the American Convention, to which the State of Guatemala is a party by reason of having ratified it on May 25, 1978. 27. The Commission has competence ratione personae to hear this petition since the identities of both the petitioners and the alleged victim satisfy the requirements set forth, respectively, in Articles 44 and 1(2) of the Convention. 28. The IACHR has competence ratione temporis to hear this petition since the obligation of respecting and ensuring the rights protected by the American Convention was already in force for the Guatemalan State on the date on which the alleged violations occurred. 29. Finally, the Commission has competence ratione loci to hear this petition since it alleges violations of rights within the territory of the respondent state party. B. Admissibility Requirements of the Petition 1. Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies 30. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention stipulates that the admissibility of a petition depends directly on the remedies offered by domestic jurisdiction having been “pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law.”7 Both the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Court”) and the Commission have, on repeated occasions, maintained that: “Under the generally recognized principles of international law and international practice, the rule which requires the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies is designed for the benefit of the State, for that rule seeks to excuse the 7 See: Inter-Am.Ct.H.R., Exceptions to the Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies (Arts. 46(1), 46(2)(a) and 46(2)(b) of the American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-11/90, August 10, 1990, Ser. A No. 11, paragraph 17. 5