27. The Commission has competence ratione temporis, since the events alleged in the petition took place at a time when the duty to respect and ensure the rights enshrined in the Convention was in force for the State. 28. Finally, the Commission has competence ratione materiae, since the petition alleges violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. 29. Accordingly, the Commission finds that it is competent to address the claims raised in the petition. C. Other admissibility requirements 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 30. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention states: 1. Admission by the Commission of a petition or communication lodged in accordance with Articles 44 or 45 shall be subject to the following requirements: a. that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law[.] 31. The Commission and the Court have repeatedly insisted on their “reinforcing and complementary” status within the inter-American system of protection of human rights.5 This status is reflected in Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention, which permits States parties to decide cases within their own legal framework, before there is need for recourse to an international proceeding. 32. In the instant case, the Petitioner argues that the alleged victim has taken adequate action before the courts of domestic jurisdiction provided by Barbadian law to seek a remedy for the alleged violations of his constitutional rights. He asserts that these actions have not been sufficient to ensure an effective remedy for rights allegedly violated by the State. 33. Following Mr. Cadogan’s conviction for murder, an appeal was brought to the Court of Appeal of Barbados. The Court of Appeal, which affirmed the lower court’s decision on May 31, 2006, concluded that the trial judge’s instruction was ‘proper’ according to the tried and tested formula by domestic courts. Subsequently on July 24, 2006, Mr. Cadogan applied for special leave to appeal, which was later joined by an application for a special leave to appeal as a poor person to the Caribbean Court of Justice, both of which were dismissed on December 4, 2006. The Court concluded that the claims of unfair trial based on ineffective counsel; necessity for junior and senior counsel; and the lack of independence by government employed expert psychiatrists were not adequately substantiated and did not give rise to a miscarriage of justice. The Court examined new evidence for consideration of the defense of diminished responsibility, which was found to be insufficient to afford any ground for an appeal. 34. In the instant case, the State has not provided observations regarding the admissibility of Mr. Cadogan’s claims, and has thereby tacitly waived its right to object to the admissibility of claims in the petition based on the exhaustion of domestic remedies requirement. The information before the Commission indicates that he in fact exhausted the ordinary remedies applicable in his case. 35. According to the Commission’s prior jurisprudence, Mr. Cadogan is not required to pursue a Constitutional motion before the courts in Barbados because he is indigent. Though technically still an available option, such a motion would be sufficiently complex as to require legal assistance and assistance, with such motions is not provided by Barbados. The State has not provided any observations or evidence to contend these allegations. Therefore, the Commission finds that Mr. Cadogan’s claims are not barred from consideration under Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention or Article 31(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. 6