IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis, ratione loci 40. In accordance with the provisions of Article 44 of the American Convention and Article 23 of the IACHR Rules of Procedure, the petitioners have standing to present a petition before the Commission regarding alleged violations of the rights provided for in said treaty. With respect to the State, Chile is a party to the American Convention, and therefore is internationally responsible for violations of said instrument. The alleged victims are individuals with respect to whom the State undertook to guarantee the rights provided for by the American Convention. Based on the foregoing, the Inter-American Commission has the competence ratione personae to examine the complaint. 41. The IACHR is competent ratione materiae because the petition contains complaints of violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. It also has jurisdiction ratione temporis because the obligation to respect and guarantee rights in said treaty was already in force for the State at the time in which the alleged facts in the petition occurred, since Chile ratified the American Convention on August 21, 1990. Finally, the Inter-American Commission is competent ratione loci to hear the petition, because it contains allegations of violations of human rights protected by the American Convention that took place within the territory of a State party to said instrument. B. Requirements for admissibility of the petition 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 42. Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention provides that one of the requirements for the admission of a petition is “that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law.” 43. Based on the information submitted by the parties, the Commission notes that in the instant petition domestic resources have been exhausted. Indeed, on October 13, 2004, the Court of Appeals of Temuco denied the motion, filed by the defense of Messrs. and Mme. Juan Patricio Marileo Sanabria, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñan and Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Lican, to vacate the judgment finding them guilty, handed down on August 22, 2004. 44. Pursuant to article 387 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Chile, the decision on a motion to vacate has no appeal, without prejudice to a review of the final judgment finding the defendant guilty. Should the motion to vacate have been granted, the judgment handed down in a new trial is not subject to appeal, either. However, the article states that should the new judgment convict the defendant, and the judgment quashed following the appeal had been for acquittal, then a motion to vacate in favor of the defendant shall be in order. 45. The Inter-American Commission has verified that the remedies provided for by Chilean legislation for these cases have been exhausted. It therefore finds that the petition examined meets the requirement of Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention. 2. Timeliness of the petition 46. Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention provides that one of the requirements for the 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.” 7