alleviated Mr. Mohamed of his responsibilities as a driver, given that both sets of transit regulations prohibited the conduct in question, and that there clearly existed certain general duties of care at the time of the accident. 22. With respect to the right to be heard under Article 8, the State maintains that Mr. Mohamed was prosecuted through two instances in which all guarantees were observed. Accordingly, it considers that the terms of Article 8 were fully respected. The State notes that the extraordinary appeal filed subsequent to Mr. Mohamed’s conviction was rejected for failing to present a federal question or an arbitrary sentence. The State cites Article 2 of Protocol 7 to the European Convention in support of its contention that international law does not require a further instance of review in the case of convictions originating at the appellate level. 23. The State maintains that the petition is inadmissible for failing to state claims characterizing the violation of a right protected under the American Convention. Further, the State notes that it corresponds in the first instance to the national courts to interpret and apply national law, and that the Commission is not competent to act as a fourth instance in such matters. IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence of the Commission ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis and ratione loci 24. In accordance with the terms of Article 44 of the American Convention, the petitioners have standing to present a petition before the Commission. The petition under study identifies as the alleged victim an individual with respect to whom the Argentina State had committed itself to respect and guarantee the rights protected in the American Convention. With respect to the State, the Commission observes that Argentina is a State Party to the American Convention, having duly deposited its instrument of ratification on September 5, 1984. Accordingly, the Commission has the competence ratione personae to examine the claims presented. 25. The IACHR has jurisdiction ratione loci to consider the petition, because the alleged violation of rights protected in the American Convention occurred within the territory of Argentina, a State party to that treaty. The Inter-American Commission also has jurisdiction ratione temporis because the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected in the American Convention was already in effect for the State at the time the alleged events took place. Finally, the Commission has jurisdiction ratione materiae because the petition complains of violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. B. Other requirements for the admissibility of the petition 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 26. Article 46 of the American Convention specifies that, in order for a case to be admitted, "remedies under domestic law [must] have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law." In the present case, the parties accept and the record confirms that the full range of applicable domestic remedies was invoked. The State has filed no objection to the effect that additional remedies should have been invoked, or that those presented were invoked