35. In the first place, the Commission observes that the character of presumed victim attributed to Mauricio Herrera Ulloa, is not disputed at all, since he fits within the scope of the definition of person pursuant to Article 1(2) of the Convention, which stipulates that “person means every human being.” Moreover, Mr. Herrera Ulloa, as the subject of the judicial proceedings initiated by the diplomat Féliz Przedborski, is directly affected by the judicial decisions of November 12, 1999 and January 24, 2001, and by the order of execution dated February 27, 2001, inter alia. Pursuant to these judgments, he was ascribed responsibility for committing various offenses and ordered to execute the sentence. Finally, the IACHR is fully competent from the standpoint of ratione materiae with regard to Mauricio Herrera Ulloa, to ascertain whether there were violations of his rights as established by the American Convention. 36. As regards the legal standing of Fernán Vargas Rohrmoser, the State contends that Fernán Vargas Rohrmoser, as the legal representative of “La Nación,” acted on behalf of a legal person and not on his own behalf, and that therefore the Commission is not competent ratione personae to consider the petition. The petitioners allege that the individual rights of Mr. Vargas Rohrmoser were directly affected by the Execution and Prevention Order dated February 21, 2001, which required the presumed victims to execute the order “immediately, … peremptorily, irrevocably, without delay.” At the same time, they allege that the judicial decision of April 3, 2001 warned the presumed victims of the possibility of being charged with the crime of disobedience of authority in the event they should fail to comply with the judgment, which would entail imposition of a criminal sanction or a prison sentence for Mr. Vargas Rohrmoser if he should fail to execute the judgment, which would directly violate his rights protected under the Convention. The State alleges that the Execution and Prevention Order is binding on Mr. Vargas Rohrmoser exclusively in his capacity as the legal representative of “La Nación,” and not in a personal capacity, and that noncompliance on his part does not entail a criminal sanction or prison sentence against him, since execution of the sentence is subject to commutation under Costa Rican national law. 37. The Commission is of the opinion that to determine whether or not Mr. Vargas Rohrmoser was a victim will require a complex analysis both of conventional laws, such as laws applicable to the Costa Rican national jurisdiction, and of the jurisprudence of the Commission and the Court, which is closely linked to decisions to be adopted by the IACHR on the merits of the case. Therefore, the Commission is reserving its decision on the qualification of Fernán Vargas Rohrmoser as a victim for the later stage of the proceedings on the substance of the matter. 38. Therefore, for the purposes of admissibility, the Commission decides that it is competent ratione personae insofar as Mauricio Herrera Ulloa is concerned, and it is deferring its decision on Fernán Vargas Rohrmoser to a later stage, when it reaches a determination on the merits of this petition. b. Competence ratione materiae 39. Having identified the presumed victim in this petition, the Commission will now consider the question of its competence by reason of the subject matter of the reported violations. 40. In this regard, the Commission notes that the judgment of November 12, 1999 was binding on the journalist, Mauricio Herrera Ulloa and “La Nación” newspaper jointly, since it stated that the journalist, Mauricio Herrera Ulloa, was the author of four crimes of publication of offensive material constituting defamation and sentenced him jointly and severally with La Nación to payment of a separate fine for moral prejudice. At the same time, the judgment established similar obligations for Mauricio Herrera Ulloa and “La Nación” newspaper, as it ordered the former to publish the operative part of the judgment and the latter to withdraw the link between the articles in dispute written by Mauricio Herrera and establish a new link between said articles and the operative part of the conviction. In view of these facts, which are not disputed by the parties, the Commission considers that it is competent to determine whether they constitute violations of Article 13 of the American Convention. 41. Consequently, the Commission finds that the petition reports violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. Therefore, the Commission is competent ratione materiae to consider the petition. 6