4 A. Jurisdiction ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione temporis y ratione materiae of the Commission 22. The petitioner is entitled under Article 44 of the American Convention to lodge a petition with the IACHR. The petition states that the alleged victim is a natural person, with respect to whom Peru has pledged to respect and ensure the rights established in the American Convention. Moreover, Peru ratified the American Convention on July 28, 1978. Therefore, the Commission has personal jurisdiction to examine the petition. 23. The Commission has territorial jurisdiction to deal with the petition, because it alleges violations of rights protected by the American Convention that that took place within the territory of a state party thereto. 24. The IACHR has temporal jurisdiction because the facts alleged in the petition took place when the obligation to respect and ensure the rights established in the American Convention were already in force for the State of Peru. 25. Finally, the Commission has material jurisdiction, because the petition refers to alleged violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. B. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 26. Article 46.1.a of the American Convention states that for a complaint lodged with the Inter-American Commission in compliance with Article 44 of the Convention to be admissible, the remedies available under domestic law must have first been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. That requirement is intended to facilitate the domestic authorities’ examination of the alleged violation of a protected right and, if appropriate, to enable them to resolve it before it is brought before an international venue. 27. The requirement of prior exhaustion applies when there are adequate and effective remedies actually available in the national system to correct or redress the alleged violation. In this context, Article 46.2 specifies that the requirement does not apply when the domestic legislation does not provide for due process of law for the protection of the right in question, or when the alleged victim has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law or when there has been an unwarranted delay in rendering judgment under the aforesaid remedies. As indicated in Article 31 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, when the petitioner alleges one of these exceptions, it is up to the State to demonstrate that the remedies under domestic law have not been exhausted, unless that is clearly evident from the 3 record. In the present case, the State of Peru did not allege lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies; on the contrary, in its response it described in detail the domestic judicial proceedings conducted and the 4 corresponding decisions issued. 28. The petitioner alleged failure to comply with the final judgment handed down by the Supreme Court on February 2, 1993 and ratified by the Constitutional Court on December 10, 1999. He further referred to a third judgment also handed down by the Supreme Court on October 29, 1997, that reiterated that Oscar Muelle Flores was protected by the pension system stipulated in Decree-Law 20530. 3 IACHR, Report Nº 32/05, petition 642/03, Admissibility, Luís Rolando Cuscul Pivaral and other persons affected by HIV/AIDS, Guatemala, March 7, 2005, paras. 33-35; IACtHR., Case of the Mayagna Community (Sumo) Awas Tingni. Preliminary Objections, Judgment of February 1, 2000. Series C No. 66, para. 53; IACtHR., Case of Durand and Ugarte. Preliminary Objections, Judgment of May 28, 1999. Series C No. 50, para. 33; and, IACtHR., Case of Cantoral Benavides. Preliminary Objections, Judgment of September 3, 1998. Series C No. 40, para. 31. 4 IAHCR, Report 10/09, Petition 4071-02, Argentina, Mercedes Eladia Farelo, March 13, 2009. para. 37. 4