that the alleged victim is someone in whose regard Argentina has undertaken to respect and guarantee the rights established in the American Convention. As for the State, the Commission notes that Argentina has been a State Party to the Convention since September 5, 1984, the date on which it deposited its instrument of ratification. Therefore, the Commission has competence ratione personae to review the petition. 25. The Commission has competence ratione loci to review the petition because it alleges violations of rights protected by the American Convention that occurred within the territory of a State Party to it. The Commission has competence ratione temporis since the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected by the American Convention was in effect for the State when the violations alleged in the petition occurred. Finally, The Commission has competence ratione materiae because the petition alleges violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. B. Other requirements for admissibility 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 26. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention requires that in order for a complaint lodged with the Inter-American Commission under Article 44 of the Convention to be admissible, all remedies available under domestic law must have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that the State involved has the opportunity to resolve controversies within its own legal framework. 27. In the instant case, the petitioner argues that he duly exhausted the internal remedies with the filing of the recurso de inaplicabilidad and recurso de nulidad before the Supreme Court of the Province of Buenos Aires. For its part, the State argued that the petitioner should have filed an action for damages and, moreover, that the remedies he filed were not the appropriate ones to claim reparations for the supposed delay. 28. Regarding this, the Commission notes that there is no disagreement between the parties as far as the labor proceeding having been culminated in all instances. Additionally, both parties concur that, in the course of the labor proceeding, the petitioner presented briefs complaining about the delay before the judge of the first instance and, subsequently, he alleged excessive delay in the processing of his case in the special appeals for inapplicability and nullity. Furthermore, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Control Authority of the Supreme Court Justice of Buenos Aires (Inspección General de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de Buenos Aires), which