8 Convention. As regards the State, the Commission notes that Guatemala has been a State Party to the American Convention since May 25, 1978, when it deposited its ratification instrument. Therefore, the Commission is competent ratione personae to examine the petition. Furthermore, the Commission is competent ratione loci to take cognizance of the petition inasmuch as it alleges violations of rights protected in the American Convention that took place within the territory of Guatemala, a State Party to said Convention. 42. The Commission is competent ratione temporis inasmuch as the obligation to respect and ensure the rights protected in the American Convention were already in force for the State on the date that the facts alleged in the petition occurred. Finally, the Commission is competent ratione materiae because the petition reports potential violations of human rights protected under the American Convention. B. Other requirements for the admissibility of the petition 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 43. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention provides that for a complaint submitted to the InterAmerican Commission to be admissible pursuant to Article 44 of the Convention, it is necessary for domestic remedies to have been sought and exhausted in keeping with generally recognized principles of international law. This requirement has the objective of allowing domestic authorities to take cognizance of the alleged violation of a protected right and, where appropriate, have the opportunity to decide on it before it is taken up by an international body. Article 46(2) of the Convention, for its part, provides for three situations in which the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies does not apply: (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. These situations refer not only to the existence of such remedies, but also to their appropriateness and effectiveness. 44. In this case, the State did not object to the admissibility of the petition, although it alleged that the decision to surrender the children for adoption was done in keeping with the applicable provisions and the biological parents did not duly exhaust all remedies available. The petitioners, for their part, argued that there has been an unwarranted delay in the ruling on the appeals lodge to review the declaration of abandonment of the children (as of the decision of August 6, 1997, up until November 7, 2000), and after the appeal was upheld, there has been an unwarranted delay in summoning the children and adoptive parents to appear before the Court, in order to ensure contact with the biological parents (since August 31, 2001 to date). In sum, the petitioners alleged that the children were illegally separated from their mother by State authorities, who to date have not returned them, despite all the legal remedies and administrative measures they have taken, including offering to pay the necessary procedures to send letters rogatory to the United States. The petitioner also indicated that the request made by the Court for Mr. Gustavo Amílcar Tobar Fajardo to defray the costs of the letters rogatory is inconsistent with the State’s obligation to guarantee children’s rights and protect its inhabitants’ human rights. 45. Having analyzed the arguments of fact and of law of the two parties, the Commission notes that the domestic remedies relevant to this matter can be divided in two stages: a first stage related to the decision to authorize the adoption of the two children, with the specific characteristics of an international adoption; and a second stage, after the children’s transfer to the United States, aimed at challenging the decision to give them up for adoption or alternatively, seeking some kind of relationship between the two children and their biological parents. With regard to the first stage, the Commission took into account the arguments of the petitioners in the sense that, at different moments during this stage, the children’s mother was not duly notified of legal proceedings. Furthermore, the Commission does not have specific information on how the two children’s representation was provided during said proceedings. In the absence of specific arguments on these points by the State, the Commission concludes that the children’s mother had no effective access to domestic remedies.