6 IV. ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence 24. The petitioners are authorized to lodge petitions w ith the Inter-American Commission, under Article 44 of the American Conv ention. The alleged victims—Vladimir Herzog and his next of kin: Clarice, Ivo, and André Herzog—are persons for w hom the State has made a commitment to respect and guarantee the rights recognized in that international instrument. With regard to the State, Brazil ratified the American Convention on September 25, 1992, and thus the Inter-American Commission has jurisdiction ratione personae to examine the petition. Under Article 23 of its Rules of Procedure, the IACHR is also competent ratione materiae, as the petition refers to alleged human rights violations protected by the American Declaration, the American Convention, and the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. With respect to this last instrument, the IACHR observes that Brazil deposited the respective instrument of ratification on July 20, 1989. 25. As to its jurisdiction ratione temporis, the IACHR notes that the purported arbitrary detention, torture, and death of the alleged victim reportedly occurred on October 25, 1975, before Brazil had ratified the American Convention and the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. Therefore, the applicable source of that right is initially the American Declaration. 3 Nevertheless, the IACHR notes that for the events that occurred as of July 20, 1989, and September 25, 1992—in line w ith the ratification dates mentioned above—or those events that could appropriately be considered a situation involving an ongoing violation of rights that w ould continue to exist after those dates, the Inter-American Commission has jurisdiction ratione temporis to examine this petition under the American Convention and the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. On that point , and in view of the State’ s contention regarding the lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis, the IACHR notes that the petitioners’ arguments w ith regard to these instruments refer to the ongoing impunity for these acts—w hich allegedly continues to this day because of the Brazilian amnesty law – as w ell as the law ’ s incompatibility w ith the American Convention. As described infra (para. 34), the petitioners sustain that the criminal investigation about the facts in this case began by means of a request of the Public Prosecutor’ s Office on May 4, 1992, and this investigation w as allegedly archived in accordance w ith a judgment of October 13, 1992 w hich applied the amnesty law . Thus this occurred w hen both the American Convention and the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture w ere already in force regard ing Brazil. 26. Finally, the Inter-American Commission is competent ratione loci to hear the claim, as the petition alleges acts that reportedly took place w ithin the territory of Brazil and that w ould constitute violations of rights protected in the American Declaration, the American Convention, and the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. B. Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies 27. Under Article 46(1) of the American Convention, for a petition to be admissible by the IACHR, the remedies offered under domestic law must have been exhausted, in accordance w ith generally recognized principles of international law . The second paragraph of Article 46 states that these provisions shall not be applicable w hen the domestic legislation does not afford due pro cess of law for the protection of the right in question; w hen access to the remedies under domestic law 3 See, mutatis mutandi, IACHR. Report No. 5/11, Admissibility, Petition 702 -03, Ivan Rocha, Brazil, March 22, 2011, para. 24; quoting, inter alia, I/A Court H.R., Advisory Opinion OC-10/89, Interpretation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man w ithin the Framew ork of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights, July 14, 1989, Series A No. 10, paras. 35-45.