petitioners’ actions in this regard as contradictory, indicating that had the petitioners truly exhausted the available domestic remedies they would no longer be participating in the ongoing judicial investigation. Rather, the State maintains that the petitioners have manifested nothing more than their disagreement with the results of certain aspects of the jurisdictional process. Thus, the State concludes that the petitioners have failed to exhaust domestic remedies, or to set forth any violation of the rights to judicial protection and guarantees under Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. The State emphasizes that the duty to investigate is one of means rather than results, and has been fully complied with in the present case. 31. Sixth, with respect to the petitioners’ allegations that the State’s failure to respond to the Commission’s request for information in a timely manner means it waived its right to controvert the admissibility of the petition or the facts alleged, the State maintains that this is incorrect as a matter of fact and law. It notes that its May 4, 2000 request for an extension contained an express reservation that the same did not imply any acceptance of the petitioners’ allegations, and that the relevant information was thereafter presented as soon as it could be made available. It further notes that the presumption set forth in Article 39 of the Commission’s current Rules of Procedure as to the truth of the facts alleged in the case of the non-response of the state concerned applies only once the merits stage of a case has been reached. IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence of the Commission 32. 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 indicates that the alleged victim was subject to the jurisdiction of the Argentine State at the time of the alleged facts. 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. The Commission is competent ratione materiae because the petitioners allege violations of rights protected under the American Convention. 33. The Commission has temporal jurisdiction to review the claims. The petition is based on allegations that date to August 29, 1994, the time of Jorge Gutiérrez’ death. The facts alleged thus arose subsequent to the entry into force of the State’s obligations as a Party to the American Convention. Furthermore, given that the petition alleges violations of rights protected under the American Convention that have taken place in the territory of a State Party, the Commission concludes that it has the competence ratione loci to take cognizance of it. B. Other requirements for the admissibility of the petition a. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 34. Article 46 of the American Convention specifies that, in order for a case to be admitted, "remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law." This requirement exists to ensure the state concerned the opportunity to resolve disputes within its own legal framework. As indicated above, the petitioners contend that the petition satisfies this requirement, and that in failing to respond to the petition in a timely way, the State waived its right to contest this point. The State maintains that it expressly noted in its May 4, 2000 request for an extension that the delay in its response did not constitute a waiver, and that it submitted the relevant information once able to do so. 35. In this connection, it is well-established in the jurisprudence of the inter-American system that the requirement that domestic remedies be exhausted is considered a means of defense and, as 6