20. The petitioners are entitled, under Article 44 of the American Convention, to lodge complaints with the IACHR. The petition refers, as alleged victims, individual persons with respect to whom Guatemala had assumed the obligation to respect and ensure the rights enshrined in the Convention. As regard to the State, the Commission observes that Guatemala has been a state party to the American Convention since its ratification on May 25, 1978. The Commission, therefore, has competence ratione personae to examine the instant petition. 21. The Commission has competence ratione loci to examine this petition since the alleged violation to the rights protected by the American Convention occurred within the territory of a state party to that instrument. 22. The Commission has competence ratione temporis since the alleged incidents took place at a time when the obligation of respecting and guaranteeing the rights enshrined in the Convention was already into force for the State. 23. Finally, the Commission has competence ratione materiae, since the petition describes violations of human rights that are protected by the American Convention. B. Admissibility requirements 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 24. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention stipulates that one of the requirements for a petition to be admitted is that “the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law.” Those principles refer not only to the formal existence of such remedies, but also to their adequacy and effectiveness. Adequate domestic remedies within the domestic legal system are those that are suitable to redress an infringement of a legal right. An effective remedy is one that is capable of producing the result for which it was designed.9 25. Members of the alleged victim’s family claim to have filed a total of fivehabeas corpus remedies, from which the petition reports only on three and attaches records on two. The first one was presented the same afternoon as the disappearance occurred; the second one on June 23, 1997; and the third one on August 12 of the same year. The latter remedy was declared inadmissible, while the IACHR is unaware of the results of the others. The petitioners also filed a special investigation procedure10 before the Supreme Court of Justice on January 14, 1998, and another one with the Supreme Court’s criminal chamber, on February 5, 1998. The latter one was lodged with the criminal chamber of the Supreme Court on May 7, 1999. 11 In that procedure, the Attorney for Human Rights was instructed to begin the investigation, while the jurisdictional control over the proceedings was given to the Fifth First-Instance Court for Criminal, Drug, and Environmental Offenses. However, in spite of the indications that a disappearance had happened, the State has not ordered an investigation to determine the 9 Inter-Am.Ct.H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Judgment of July 29, 1988, Series C Nº 4, paragraphs 63-64;Godínez Cruz Case, Judgment of January 20, 1989, Series C Nº 5, paragraphs 66-67; Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales Case, Judgment of March 15, 1989, Series C Nº 6, paragraphs 87-88. 10 Article 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that if a habeas corpus remedy is lodged and fails to locate the individual in question, and there are sufficient grounds for believing that said individual has been arrested or illegally kept in detention by a public official, members of the state security forces, or regular or irregular agents, and no explanation of the individual’s whereabouts is given, the Supreme Court of Justice may, following a request made by any person: (1) Call on the Public Prosecution Service to report to the Court, within a period of five days, on the progress and results of the investigation, and on the measures taken and ordered and on those still awaiting execution. The Supreme Court of Justice may, when necessary, shorten the period of time allowed. (2) Order the investigation (preparatory procedure) to be conducted solely by: (a) the Attorney for Human Rights; (b) an agency or association legally existing in the country; (c) the victim’s spouse or relatives. 11 Resolution of May 7, 1999, from the Supreme Court of Justice’s criminal chamber, attached to the petitioners’ note of June 17, 1999. 4