In fact, to assert that the issuance of a press release is grounds to prevent the members of this body from hearing and deciding an individual petition individual about specific events unreasonably restricts the essence of the IACHR’s main function, and renders ineffective two of the most important promotion and protection mechanisms of the Inter-American Human Rights System, to the detriment of the victims of human rights violations in the hemisphere. 36. Added to the aforementioned, the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression is not a member of the Commission, and therefore, does not vote for the approval of the reports on individual petitions. 37. For these reasons, the Commission finds no merit in Ecuador’s request for recusal in this case. B. Competence of the Commission ratione materiae, ratione personae, ratione temporis, and ratione loci 38. Under Article 44 of the American Convention and Article 23 of the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR, the petitioner has locus standi to file petitions before the Inter-American Commission. With respect to the State, Ecuador is a party to the American Convention, and therefore is internationally accountable for violations of that instrument. The alleged victims are individuals with respect to whom the State agreed to guarantee the rights enshrined in the American Convention. Accordingly, the Commission has jurisdiction ratione personae to examine the petition. 39. The IACHR has jurisdiction ratione materiae because the petition concerns alleged violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. In addition, the Commission notes that Ecuador has been a State Party to the Convention since December 28, 1977, the date on which it deposited its ratification instrument. Therefore, the Commission has jurisdiction ratione temporis to examine the petition. Finally, the Inter-American Commission has jurisdiction ratione loci to examine petition because it alleges the violation of rights protected in the American Convention that reportedly took place in Ecuador. C. Admissibility requirements 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 40. Article 46.1.a of the American Convention provides that for a petition submitted to the InterAmerican Commission to be admissible under Article 44 of the Convention, the petitioner must first have pursued and exhausted domestic remedies, in keeping with generally recognized principles of international law. 41. The analysis of the exhaustion of domestic remedies must start by identifying the remedies that must be exhausted, understanding as such those remedies that are suitable to address an infringement of a legal right.3 The Commission has similarly established that the requirement of the exhaustion of domestic remedies does not mean that the alleged victims have the obligation to exhaust all of the remedies available to them. Both the Court and the Commission have held repeatedly that “(…), the rule which requires the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies is designed for the benefit of the State, for that rule seeks to excuse the State from having to respond to charges before an international body for acts imputed to it before it has had the opportunity to remedy them by internal means.4 Therefore, if the alleged victim raised the issue by any lawful and appropriate alternative under the domestic juridical system and the State had the opportunity to remedy the matter within its jurisdiction, then the purpose of the international rule has thus been served.5” I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4. para. 64. I/A Court H.R., In the Matter of Viviana Gallardo et al. Series A No. G 101/81, para. 26. 5 IACHR, Report No. 57/03 (Admissibility), Petition 12.337, Marcela Andrea Valdés Díaz v. Chile, October 10, 2003, para. 40. 3 4 8