Commission notes that Chile has been a State Party to the American Convention since August 21, 1990, when it deposited its instrument of ratification. The Commission therefore has jurisdiction ratione personae to examine the petition. 19. The Commission has jurisdiction ratione materiae because the petition complains of possible violations of human rights protected under the American Convention that, if proven, could constitute violations of Articles 1(1), 2, 8 and 25 of the Convention. The petitioner also alleged violations of Articles 4, 5, 7, 24 and 63(1) of the American Convention, but offered no arguments or evidence to substantiate such violations. Specifically, the petitioner alleges the denial of justice in the fact that in 2003 the Chilean Supreme Court denied his application for compensation for mental suffering occasioned by the alleged arbitrary arrest, torture and execution of Mr. Hipólito Pedro Cortés Álvarez by State agents. 20. The principal argument presented in the response by the State on February 18, 2005 is that Chile is not responsible, under the American Convention, for violations allegedly committed during the period between September 11, 1973 and March 11, 1990. The Commission considers that in the case at hand the allegations refer only to the judgments handed down by the Chilean courts between 1999 and 2003, when the Convention was already in force for Chile. As to the State's argument that the Commission should declare the petition inadmissible because the events had their origin prior to March 11, 1990, the Commission rejects this argument because the judicial proceedings constitute events independent of the summary executions. The Commission cites as authority for this conclusion the judgment of November 23, 2004 in the case of the Sisters Serrano Cruz v. El Salvador, in which the Inter-American Court held: 84. The Court considers that the events that occurred after recognition of the Court's jurisdiction by El Salvador, referring to the alleged violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention in relation with Article 1.1 thereof, are not excluded by the limitation imposed by the State, because what is at issue are judicial decisions constituting independent events that began after El Salvador's recognition of the Court's jurisdiction, and that could constitute specific and independent instances of the denial of justice occurring after recognition of the Court's jurisdiction. 21. In the case at hand, as in the Sisters Serrano Cruz case, the petitioner has alleged a violation of due process, in particular, that the