ratione materiae because the petition alleges possible violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. 30. As for the alleged violation of the American Declaration, both the Inter-American Court and the Inter-American Commission have held that the American Declaration is a source of international obligations incumbent upon the OAS member States, 3 which means that in principle the Commission has competence ratione materiae to examine violations of rights recognized in that Declaration. However, the IACHR has held that once the American Convention enters into force for a State, it is the Convention, not the Declaration, that is the specific source of law that the Inter-American Commission will apply,4 provided the petition alleges violations of rights that are substantially identical in the two instruments5 and the violations being alleged do not involve a continuing situation. 6 In the present matter, the IACHR observes that the petitioners invoked the right to the benefits of culture (Article XIII), which is protected by the Declaration but not expressly by the American Convention. Hence, the Commission will examine the allegations made by the petitioners with respect to that article of the Declaration. 31. As for ILO Convention 169 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Commission observes that while it does not have competence to issue any finding regarding a violation of those instruments, it can use them for purposes of interpreting its obligations under the American Convention, pursuant to the provisions of Article 29 thereof.7 B. Other requirements for the petition’s admissibility 1. Exhaustion of remedies under domestic law 32. For a petition alleging violation of the provisions of the American Convention to be admissible, it must meet the requirements established in Article 46(1) of that international instrument. Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention provides that in order to determine the admissibility of a petition or communication lodged with the IACHR in accordance with articles 44 or 45 of the Convention, the remedies under domestic law must have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. For its part, Article 46(2) of the Convention provides that the prior exhaustion rule shall 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 violate; (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. 33. The Commission observes that in the matter under consideration, both parties indicate that Resolution No. 110 of February 3, 1995, which the petitioners allege they were never consulted about and which granted the environmental license for oil exploration in the Samoré block, was challenged using domestic remedies in the form of the petition filed with the Constitutional Court seeking a constitutional writ of 3 See I/A Court H.R., Advisory Opinion OC-10/89, Interpretation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man within the Framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights, July 14, 1989, Ser. A No. 10 (1989), paragraphs 35-45; IACHR, James Terry Roach and Jay Pinkerton (United States), Case 9647, Res. 3/87, September 22, 1987, Annual Report 1986-1987, paragraphs 46-49; Rafael Ferrer-Mazorra et al. (United States), Report No. 51/01, case 9903, April 4, 2001. See also Article 20 of the Statute of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. ,4 IACHR. Report on Admissibility No. 03/01. Case 11,670. Amílcar Menéndez et al. (Argentina). January 19, 2001, paragraph 41; IACHR. Report on Admissibility No. 16/05. Petition 281/02. Claudia Ivette González (Mexico). February 24, 2005, paragraph 16. 5 See I/A Court H.R., Advisory Opinion OC-10/89, Interpretation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man within the Framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights, July 14, 1989, Ser. A No. 10 (1989), paragraph 46. 6 The IACHR has held that it has competence to examine violations of the Declaration and of the Convention provided it is established that the violation being alleged is a continuing violation of rights protected by both instruments. See, for example, IACHR, Annual Report 1987-88, Resolution 26/88, Case 10,190, Argentina, and IACHR, Annual Report 1998, Report 38/99, Argentina, paragraph 13. 7 See, inter alia, IACHR, Application filed with the I/A Court H.R. in the Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, March 17, 2003; IACHR, Report No. 40/04, Case 12,053, Mayan Indigenous Communities of the Toledo District v. Belize, October 12, 2004, paragraph 87. 7