15. The State concurred with the petitioners that the deaths of the alleged victims constituted homicide; that they were interrelated because they were caused by the same 38SPL caliber firearm or firearms; that the Office of the Prosecutor for Human Rightsappealed the decision and that First Court of Appeals upheld that decision. 16. The State also mentioned that the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Human Rights will spare no effort to strengthen the evidence to hand and apply again for the respective arrest warrants for all those who might be responsible for the deeds with which they are charged. IV. ANALYSIS A. Competence ratione loci, ratione personae, ratione temporis and ratione materiae of the Commission. 17. The Commission has ratione loci competence to take up this petition because it claims violations of rights protected in the American Convention that allegedly took place in the territory of a state party to that treaty. 18. The Commission has ratione personae competence by virtue of standing to be sued, since the petition is lodged against a state party, in accordance with the generic provisions contained in Articles 44 and 45 of the Convention. This competence arises from the very nature of the inter-American system of protection of human rights, under which states parties undertake to respect and ensure the rights and freedoms recognized in the Convention (Article 1). 19. The Commission has ratione personae competence because of the standing to sue of the petitioners in the instant case, in accordance with Article 44 of the Convention, which provides that "any nongovernmental entity legally recognized in one or more member states of the Organization, may lodge petitions with the Commission containing denunciations or complaints of violation of this Convention by a State Party," to the detriment of one or more individuals. 20. The Commission has ratione temporis competence inasmuch as the events alleged in the petition occurred when the duty to respect and ensure the rights recognized in the Convention was in force for the Honduran State, which ratified it on September 8, 1977. 21. Finally, the Commission has ratione materiae competence because the petition alleges violation of Articles 1(1) (general duty to ensure rights); 5 (right to humane treatment); 7 (right to personal liberty); 19 (rights of the child); 8.1 (right to a fair trial), and 25 (right to judicial protection) of the American Convention. B. Other admissibility requirements for the petition a. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 22. Article 46(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights provides that admission by the Commission of a petition or communication lodged in accordance with Articles 44 or 45 shall be subject to the requirement “that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law.” 23. The petitioners request that the exceptions contained in Article 46(2) of the Convention be applied because the investigation that the State should have initiated ex officio, in order to clarify the murders that are the subject matter of the petition, as well as to prosecute and punish those responsible, has been unreasonably delayed, has not been effective, and has left these crimes completely unpunished. 24. Article 46(2), invoked by the petitioners, provides that the rules on prior exhaustion of domestic remedies and on timeliness of the petition are not applicable when: 4