inasmuch as no i) motion to review; ii) petition for writ of reversal of judgment on cassation; and iii) petition for writ of habeas corpus, were pursued as provided for in the Constitution. IV. ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence of the Commission ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione temporis and ratione materiae 28. The petitioner is entitled under Article 44 of the American Convention to lodge petitions before the Commission. The petition identifies as the alleged victims individuals, for whom the Ecuadorian State undertook to respect and ensure the rights enshrined in the American Convention. Ecuador has been a State Party to the American Convention since December 28, 1977, when it deposited the respective instrument of ratification. Therefore, the Commission is competent ratione personae to examine the petition. The Commission is also competent ratione loci to hear the petition, inasmuch as violations of rights protected in the American Convention are alleged therein to have taken place within the territory of Ecuador, a State Party to this instrument. 29. The Commission is competent ratione temporis because the obligation to respect and ensure the rights protected in the American Convention was already in effect on the State when the facts alleged in the petition took place. Additionally, in view of the allegations set forth in the petition, the Commission notes that the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture went into effect in Ecuador on December 9, 1999, that is, subsequent to the time when the alleged victims were claimed to have been tortured. Notwithstanding, the Commission is competent ratione temporis to apply the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture as to the obligation to investigate and punish the alleged acts of torture and purported denial of justice for acts occurring subsequent to the ratification thereof. B. Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies 30. Article 46.1.a of the American Convention provides that in order for a petition lodged before the Inter-American Commission to be admissible in accordance with Article 44 of the same instrument, the requirement that remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted must be met in keeping with generally recognized principles of international law. However, Article 46.2 of the Convention provides that the prior exhaustion rule shall not apply when (i) 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; (ii) 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 (iii) there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. 31. This requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies is designed to enable national authorities to hear cases on an alleged violation of a protected right and, when appropriate, settle it before it is heard by an international body. On this issue, the Inter-American Court has held that only remedies which are adequate to cure the allegedly committed violations need be exhausted. Adequate domestic remedies are those which are suitable to address an infringement of a legal right. A number of remedies exist in the legal system of every country, but not all are applicable in every circumstance. If a remedy is not adequate in a specific case, it obviously need not be exhausted. A norm is meant to have an effect and should not be interpreted in such a way as to negate its effect or lead to a result that is manifestly absurd or unreasonable.1 1 IA Court of HR, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, paragraph 63; IA Court of HR, Case of Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales. Judgment March 15, 1989. Series C No. 6, paragraph. 88; IACHR Report No. 3/10 Segundo Norberto Contreras Contreras, paragraph. 38. 5