persons kidnapped for purposes of extortion was a minor under the age of 18; c) the crimes with which the petitioner was charged were such that they had a profound impact upon the country. The sense of defenselessness they created within the population was reminiscent of the former military dictatorship and was mirrored in the newspapers and magazines released during that period. Hence, according to the State, preventive detention pending trial was based on a reasonable suspicion that the petitioner could take flight or obstruct justice by intimidating witnesses, whose personal safety also had to be assured. 23. The State points out that not all remedies under domestic law have been exhausted, since judicial proceedings that concern the petitioner are still in progress. For that reason, the State argues, the petition should be considered inadmissible under Article 46 of the Convention. IV. ANALYSIS ON ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence of the Commission ratione materiae, ratione personae,ratione temporis and ratione loci 24. The Commission is competent to examine the petition filed by the petitioner. The petitioner contends that the State violated rights recognized in Articles 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the Convention. The facts alleged in the petition would have affected persons subject to the State’s jurisdiction at a time when the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights recognized in the Convention was already binding upon the State.10 B. Other admissibility requirements a. Exhaustion of the remedies under domestic law 25. Under Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention, for a petition lodged with the Commission to be admissible, “the remedies under domestic law [must] have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law.” Article 46(2) of the Convention sets forth three specific hypotheticals wherein the rule of prior exhaustion will 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 an unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. 26. While the three exceptions are closely related to the determination of possible violations of rights and guarantees recognized in the Convention--among them the right to due process of law within a reasonable period of time and the right to judicial protection, recognized in Convention Articles 8 and 25--,11 the Commission considers that Article 46(2), by its very nature and purpose, is an autonomous norm vis-à-vis the rights and guarantees recognized in the Convention. Consequently, the Commission’s practice has been to examine the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies separately, before going into the merits of the case. The standards it uses to gauge whether those exceptions are present are different from the standards used to determine whether violations of the rights and guarantees have occurred. The prosecutor is therefore seeking a sentence of life imprisonment, absolute and life-long disqualification and the other penalties that the law allows.” 10 The instrument of ratification was deposited with the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States on September 5, 1984. 11 The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has held that: “Under [the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies], States Parties have an obligation to provide effective judicial remedies to victims of human rights violations (Art. 25), remedies that must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of law (Art. 8(1)), all in keeping with the general obligation of such States to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention to all persons subject to their jurisdiction (Art. 1). Thus, when certain exceptions to the rule of nonexhaustion of domestic remedies are invoked, such as the ineffectiveness of such remedies or the lack of due process of law, not only is it contended that the victim is under no obligation to pursue such remedies, but, indirectly, the State in question is also charged with a new violation. Thus, the question of domestic remedies is closely tied to the merits of the case.” See: Velásquez Rodíiguez Case,Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987, Series C Nº 1, para. 91 and Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27.2, 25 and 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987, Series A Nº 9, par. 24 6