ratione personae to analyze possible violations of said treaty. The Commission is also competent ratione loci to assess the petition, in so far as it alleges violations that seemingly occurred within the territory of Honduras. 18. The Commission is competent ratione temporis, since by the time that the alleged facts are said to have taken place, the State was already bound to respect and ensure the rights protected by the American Convention and the Convention of Belém do Pará. Finally, the Commission is competent ratione materiae regarding the alleged violations of human rights protected by the American Convention on Human Rights and the Convention of Belém do Pará. 19. As to the petitioners’ complaint on the alleged violation of Article 7.1 (h) of the Statute of Rome of the International Criminal Court, the Inter-American Commission sees that it is not competent to rule on violations of said statute. However, under the principles of interpretation of treaties and Article 29 of the Convention, if necessary, the Commission is entitled to resort to provisions established in other treaties in order to interpret the provisions of the American Convention3. B. Admissibility requirements 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 20. Under Articles 31.1 of the Rules and 46.1 (a) of the American Convention, for a petition to be admissible, domestic remedies must have been pursued and exhausted, in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. This requirement is aimed at enabling national authorities to take cognizance of the alleged violation of a protected right and, if applicable, reverse the situation before it is heard by an international body. In turn, Articles 31.2 of the Rules and 46.2 of the Convention establish that the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies does not apply when: (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 unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. 21. The petitioners argue that in view of the delays in the investigations, the exception to the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies in Article 46.2 (c) of the American Convention does apply. In turn, the State argues that it has carried out all the necessary procedures in conformity with the law and that the procedure has been extended and delayed due to the high complexity of the case. In this regard, it alleges that the petition does not meet the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies set forth in Article 46.1 (a) of the Convention in view that the State has effective and adequate remedies to solve the case. 22. Concerning the alleged unwarranted delay, the Commission makes an assessment of the circumstances, and an analysis on a case-by-case basis to determine if there has been an unwarranted delay. As a general rule, the Commission establishes that “a criminal investigation shall be carried out promptly to protect the interests of the victims and to preserve evidence”. To determine if an investigation has been carried out “promptly,” the Commission takes into account a series of factors such as the time elapsed since the offense was committed, if the investigation is beyond than the preliminary stage, the measures adopted by the authorities, and the complexity of the case4. 23. The information available indicates that although a criminal investigation was open due to Vicky Hernández Castillo’s death, the investigation is still at the preliminary stage more than 7 years later after the events. Moreover, the IACHR sees that according to the information submitted, the last action in the case 3 I/A Court H.R., Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70., paragraphs 208 y 209. 4 IACHR, Report No. 50/08 (Admissibility), Petition 298-2007 Admissibility, Néstor José Uzcátegui and others, Venezuela, July 24, 2008, par. 42. 4