23. The alleged victim is an individual whose rights are protected and guaranteed under the American Convention. Based on all the foregoing, the Inter-American Commission has the competence ratione personae to analyze the petition. 24. The IACHR has the competence ratione materiae because the petition refers to charges involving the violation of rights protected by the American Convention. In addition, the Commission has the competence ratione temporis because the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected in the Convention were in effect for the State on the date on which the events alleged in the petition occurred, given that Chile ratified the American Convention on August 21, 1990. 25. Finally, the Commission has the competence ratione loci to hear the petition because it alleges violations of rights protected under the American Convention that occurred within the territory of Chile, a State Party to that convention. B. 1. Requirements for admissibility of the petition Exhaustion of domestic remedies 26. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention provides that in order for a petition filed with the Inter-American Commission in accordance with Article 44 of the Convention to be admissible, the domestic remedies must have been pursued and exhausted, in accordance with generally accepted principles of international law. 27. According to the information provided by the parties in this case, on September 9, 2004, the Supreme Court notified the alleged victim of the denial of his appeal for nullification. According to Chile’s legal system, that decision cannot be appealed. In addition, both parties indicate in the briefs they sent to the IACHR that the decision is final. 14 Based on the foregoing, the Inter-American Commission concludes that the remedies provided by Chilean law have been exhausted and consequently finds that the petition meets the requirement under Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention. 2. Deadline for submitting the petition 28. Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention establishes that one of the requirements for admission of a petition is that it must be "lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the party alleging violation of his rights was notified of the final judgment." 29. The State argues that the petition is inadmissible because it was notified by the Executive Secretariat of the IACHR on September 15, 2005, in its view after the deadline established in Articles 46(1)(b) and 47(a) of the Convention and 32(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. 30. The IACHR rejects Chile’s argument since the six month time period established in Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention runs from the date when the party whose rights have allegedly been violated was notified of the final decision to the date when the petition is submitted to the IACHR and not the date when the petition is forwarded to the State concerned. Petition sent to the IACHR on March 4, 2005, page 3 and response from the State sent to the IACHR on February 13, 2006, pages 6 and 13. 14 5