9 56. The Commission also has competence ratione temporis because the obligation to respect and ensure the rights protected under the American Convention was already in effect for the State on the date on which the facts alleged in the petition were said to have occurred. 57. Finally, the Commission has competence ratione materiae, since the petition alleges possible violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. B. Admissibility requirements 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 58. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention provides that in order for a complaint submitted to the Inter-American Commission under Article 44 of the Convention to be admissible, 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 the national authorities an opportunity to examine the alleged violation of a protected right and, if appropriate, resolve it before the violation is taken up by an international body. 59. The State made express mention of exhaustion of domestic remedies in its various briefs of observations. The petitioners, for their part, alleged that as of the date on which the petition was filed, two years after the events occurred, the lower court had not yet issued a ruling, which would trigger the exception for an unwarranted delay, set forth in Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention. 60. As the Commission has observed, in order for it to examine compliance with the rule requiring exhaustion of domestic remedies, it must first determine what the appropriate remedy is for the petitioners to exhaust given the circumstances of the case; the appropriate remedy is the one capable of rectifying the violated right.1 In cases of alleged arbitrary deprivation of the right to life, the proper course of action is investigation and a criminal proceeding instituted and prosecuted by the State ex officio, to identify the responsible parties and impose the corresponding penalties.2 61. The Commission notes that since the presentation of the initial petition there was an evolution in the internal proceeding of the cause . Indeed, the internal process got underway on September 23, 1992, with a police report prepared by the First Police Precinct. The petition was filed on November 8, 1994 and, while it was still being processed with the Inter-American Commission, the internal criminal case was finally resolved on February 26, 2002, with the ruling that the Second Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court delivered on the cassation appeal. In situations where the evolution of facts initially presented at the domestic level implies a change in the compliance or noncompliance with 1 IACHR. Report No. 51/08. Petition 299-07. Admissibility. Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto et al.. Venezuela. July 24,2008; and IACHR. Report No. 23/07. Eduardo José Landaeta Mejías et al.. Petition 435-2006, Admissibility, paragraph 43, March 9, 2007. 2 IACHR, Report No. 23/07, Eduardo José Landaeta Mejías et al., Petition 435-2006, Admissibility, paragraph 43, March 9, 2007; IACHR, Report No. 15/06, Maria Emilia González, Paula Micaela González and María Verónica Villar. Petition 618-01, Admissibility, paragraph 34, March 2, 2006; IACHR, Report No. 52/97, Case 11.218, Arges Sequeira Mangas, Annual Report 1997, paragraphs 96 and 97. See also Report No. 55/97, paragraph 392, and Report No. 55/04 paragraph 25.