evaluation of this Commission.”5 5. matter “falls outside the competence of your Honorable Delay in criminal proceedings/ violation of Article 25 36. The State rejects the Petitioner’s claim that the trial proceedings were unduly delayed, claiming that the Petitioner himself was “summoned several times and he did not appear in court or could not be reached.” The State further contends that the petitioner “reported ill more often (sic) at the Trial”, and that the “lawyers also have reported ill from time to time and asked for postponement of the Trial.” Essentially, the State contends that the length of the proceedings are attributable to the conduct of the petitioner, and not to the State. IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. The Commission’s competence ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione temporis and ratione materiae 37. Upon considering the record before it, the Commission considers that it has the competence ratione personae to entertain the claims in the present petition. Suriname is party to the American Convention, having deposited its instrument of accession thereto on November 12, 1987. The Petitioner has locus standi to submit petitions to the IACHR, in accordance with Article 44 of the Convention. The petition identifies as the alleged victim Mr. Alibux, a person, whose rights under the Convention the State of Suriname is committed to respect and ensure. 38. The Commission has competence ratione loci to take cognizance of this petition, since it alleges violations of rights guaranteed by the American Convention that purportedly occurred in the territory of a State party. 39. The Commission has competence ratione temporis, since the events alleged in the petition took place at a time when the duty to respect and ensure the rights enshrined in the Convention was in force for the State. 40. Finally, the Commission has competence ratione materiae, since the petition alleges violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. 41. Accordingly, the Commission finds that it is competent to address the claims raised in the petition. 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 42. Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention provides that the admissibility of a petition submitted to the Commission is subject to the requirement that remedies within the domestic jurisdiction be exhausted, in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. The preamble to the Convention states that it grants international protection to support or complement the protection provided by a State’s domestic laws.6 The rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies allows the State to resolve the problem according to its internal law before facing an international proceeding, which is particularly valid in the international jurisdiction of human rights. 5 Id. 6 See second paragraph in fine of the Preamble to the American Convention. 7