43. In a subsequent communication, the State elaborated further on the question of exhaustion of local remedies, asserting that the petitioner had failed “to name all the individuals involved and to take all the actions and exhaust all the remedies that Paraguayan law affords. If the petitioner has still not been able to obtain a favorable result once all these actions have been exhausted and provided there is convincing evidence to support his claims, then there may possibly have been a human rights violation attributable to the Paraguayan State; but that, too, would be debatable.” 44. The State concludes that “the proceeding, the authorities that set it in motion and the grounds invoked for removing the petitioner were all prescribed in the Constitution.” IV. A. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY Competence of the Commission 45. Under Article 44 of the American Convention, the petitioner is authorized to file a petition with the Commission. The alleged victim was under the jurisdiction of the Paraguayan State at the time the facts alleged were said to have occurred. The State, for its part, is a State party to the American Convention, having deposited its instrument of ratification, in due and proper form, on August 24, 1989. The Commission therefore has competence ratione personae to examine the complaint lodged. It also has competence ratione materiae because the petitioner is alleging violation of rights protected by the American Convention. 46. The Commission has competence ratione temporis to examine the petition inasmuch as it is based on allegations that occurred starting on July 1, 2003. Thus, the obligation to respect and ensure the rights protected under the American Convention was already binding upon the Paraguayan State at the time the events alleged in the petition occurred. Furthermore, the Commission has competence ratione loci because the petition alleges violations of Convention-protected rights said to have occurred in the territory of a state party. B. Other admissibility requirements 1. Exhaustion of local remedies 47. Article 46 of the American Convention provides that in order for a case to be admitted, “the remedies 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 afford national authorities the opportunity to address the alleged violation of a protected right, and where appropriate resolve it, before the matter is brought to the attention of an international body. 48. The requirement of prior exhaustion established in Article 46 of the Convention applies when the domestic remedies available in practice within the national system are adequate and effective in providing a remedy for the alleged violation. In this sense, Article 46(2) specifies that the requirement is not applicable when the domestic legislation does not afford due process for the protection of the right in question; or if the alleged victim did not have access to domestic remedies; or if there was unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under those remedies. As indicated by Article 31 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, when a petitioner alleges one of these exceptions, it then