a substitute judgment by which it sentenced the accused to three years’ imprisonment for the crime of aggravated kidnapping but, applying the mitigating circumstances of irreproachable past conduct and the partial statute of limitations, gave him a suspended sentence. B. Position of the State 115. The State responded on May 5, 2014 and January 7, 2016, saying that, without prejudice to the observations on merits that it might make in due course, it had no objections as regards the petitioners' compliance with the formal requirements of the admissibility. V. ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence 116. The petitioners have standing under Article 44 of the American Convention to lodge petitions with the Commission. The petition names as alleged victims individuals in respect of whom the Chilean State undertook to respect and guarantee the rights enshrined in the American Convention. As regards the State, the Commission finds that Chile has been a party to the American Convention since August 21, 1990, when it deposited its instrument of ratification. Therefore, the Commission is competent ratione personae to examine the petition. The Commission is competent ratione loci to examine the petition because it alleges violations of rights protected in the American Convention that are purported to have occurred within the territory of Chile, a state party to said treaty. 117. The Commission is competent ratione temporis in that the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected in the American Convention was already in effect for the State on the date the events alleged in the petition are said to have occurred. In that connection, the Commission notes that the petitioners allege the application of the concept of “partial lapse of the statutory time period” (media prescripción) or “partial statutory limitations” (prescripción gradual) in the final stage of each of the above cases, which in each instance occurred when the Convention was in force in Chile. Finally, the Commission is competent ratione materiae, given that the petition alleges possible violations of rights protected under the American Convention. B. Admissibility requirements 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 118. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention provides that admission of petitions lodged with the Inter-American Commission alleging violation 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. This rule is designed to allow national authorities to examine alleged violations of protected rights and, as appropriate, to resolve the situation before it is taken up in an international proceeding. For its part, Article 46(2) provides that the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies is not applicable when: (a) domestic law does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right or rights 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; and (c) there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. 119. The petitioners state that the Supreme Court, examining applications for cassation in each matter, vacated each judgment at second instance and, without a new hearing of the case, rendered a new decision that amounted to a final judgment. They say that no possible remedies exist because the decision comes from the Supreme Court and, therefore, is final. 120. The State, for its part, says that it has no objections in terms of the petitioners’ compliance with the formal requirements of admissibility. 19