4 23. The Commission has ratione temporis competence because the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected in the American Convention was in force for the State on the date the facts alleged in the petition are said to have occurred. 24. Finally, the Commission has ratione materiae competence because the petition alleges possible violations of human rights protected in the American Convention. B. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 25. Article 46.1.a of the American Convention stipulates, as a requirement for the admission of a petition alleging violations of rights protected in that treaty, that remedies under domestic law have been exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. 26. Article 46.2 of the Convention provides that the requirement for prior exhaustion of domestic remedies shall not be applicable when: a. the domestic legislation of the state concerned does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right or rights that have allegedly been violated; b. the party alleging violation of his rights has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law or has been prevented from exhausting them; or c. there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. 27. The requirement for prior exhaustion of domestic remedies applies when the national system has adequate and effective remedies to correct the alleged violation. This requirement for admissibility is intended to inform national authorities of the alleged violation of a protected right so that, if appropriate, they can correct it before it is considered at the international level. 28. According to Article 31.3 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure and the consistent jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court,2 when the petitioner contends that it is not possible to prove compliance with the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, it shall be up to the State concerned to demonstrate that the remedies under domestic law have not been previously exhausted, unless that is clearly evident from the record. 29. In this case, the State made timely reference to the failure to exhaust domestic remedies, saying that the criminal proceeding regarding the deaths of the alleged victims was ongoing; and alleging that the petitioners had not exhausted the constitutional appeal for protection established in Article 27 of the Venezuelan Constitution. 30. With respect to the criminal proceeding, the State noted that the respective investigations had begun on the same day as the facts, November 10, 2003, and that they had not been concluded. It said that the case was still in the “preparatory phase”; i.e., its initial investigative period in the Public Prosecutor’s Office. Both parties agree on this fact. 31. The Commission notes that the last judicial decision in the case was a resolution of the Third Control Court on June 19, 2006, which rejected the petitioners’ motion to set a reasonable deadline for the Public Prosecutor’s Office to finish the pre-trial proceedings.3 32. The Inter-American Commission reiterates that to analyze compliance with the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies, it must determine what was the appropriate remedy to exhaust under the circumstances, meaning the remedy best suited to resolving the legal infringement. In cases of alleged 2 Inter-American Court, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Judgment of July 29, 1988, para. 64. 3 Initial petition received on October 16, 2007. Appendix K2. Record of the Third Criminal Control Court of Ciudad Bolívar of June 19, 2006.