7 the date on which the facts set forth in the petition are alleged to have occurred. Finally, the Commission is competent ratione materiae, because the petition alleges possible violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. B. Admissibility requirements 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 39. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention requires the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies in keeping with generally recognized principles of international law as a requirement for admitting claims alleging violations of the American Convention. 40. In the instant petition, the State alleges: (1) that as of the date of filing of the petition, the regular jurisdiction criminal proceeding against the alleged victim was pending, (2) the failure to exhaust the remedy of habeas corpus against the first detention of the alleged victim; and (3) the failure to exhaust the contentious-administrative action due to the alleged delay in the regular jurisdiction criminal proceeding against him. The petitioners, for their part, allege that due to the incommunicado detention of Gonzalo Cortéz it was not possible to file a writ of habeas corpus, and that the exception provided for at Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention, regarding unwarranted delay in the regular criminal proceeding, applies in this case. 41. Article 31(3) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure establishes that when petitioners allege that exception, the burden of proving that said domestic remedies continue to represent an effective corrective measure in the face of the alleged harm is shifted to the State. 42. One must clarify which domestic remedies have to be exhausted in the instant case. The Inter-American Court has noted that only those remedies adequate to address the violations allegedly committed need be exhausted: Adequate domestic remedies are those which are suitable to address an infringement of a legal right. A number of remedies exist in the legal system of every country, but not all are applicable in every circumstance. If a remedy is not adequate in a specific case, it obviously need not be exhausted. A norm is meant to have an effect and should not be interpreted in such a way as to negate its effect or lead to a result that is manifestly absurd or unreasonable.4 43. The Commission observes that this petition refers specifically to the facts related to the alleged violations of the right to personal liberty and to due process in the criminal proceeding brought against Gonzalo Cortéz, which include the alleged arbitrary detentions, the incommunicado detention, and the alleged violations of due process, as well as the alleged cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment to which the alleged victim is said to have been subjected, and the alleged violation of his right to private property. 44. First, with respect to the remedies adequate for challenging the deprivation of liberty, the Commission observes that as of the date on which the facts occurred two remedies were available in Ecuador: (i) the constitutional habeas corpus remedy, and (ii) the amparo de libertad remedy, also known as legal habeas corpus. 4 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 63.