6 and ratione loci 30. The petitioners are authorized, in principle, by Article 44 of the American Convention to submit complaints to the IACHR. The petition names as alleged victims individuals on whose behalf the Honduran State undertook to respect and ensure the rights enshrined in the American Convention and other international instruments.6 Honduras has been a state party to the American Convention since September 8, 1977, when it deposited its instrument of ratification. Thus, the Commission has ratione personae competence to examine the petition. The Commission is competent ratione loci to examine the petition because it alleges violations of rights protected in the American Convention that are purported to have occurred on Honduran soil. 31. The Commission is competent ratione temporis because the obligation to observe and ensure the rights protected in the American Convention was already binding upon the State at the time the events described in the petition are alleged to have occurred. Furthermore, the Commission is competent ratione materiae, given that the petition alleges possible violations of rights protected under the American Convention. B. Admissibility requirements 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 32. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention requires prior exhaustion of remedies available under domestic law in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law, as a prerequisite for admitting claims regarding alleged violation of the American Convention. For its part, Article 46(2) provides that the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies is not applicable when: (a) domestic law 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; and (c) there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. 33. As for the alleged facts, the State argues that the obligations set forth in the American Convention with respect to fair trial guarantees were met. For their part, the petitioners argue that the exception provided for in Article 46(2)(c) of the Convention applies in view of the unwarranted delay in the domestic judicial processes. They hold that although there was a judgment convicting one of the perpetrators of the extrajudicial execution of Herminio Deras García, its enforcement is still pending and, therefore, that proceeding has not properly concluded. In addition, two other agents of the State suspected of participation have not been tried because they are fugitives, without the state having taken the necessary steps to catch them. 34. The Commission finds that the facts described by the petitioners include alleged violations of fundamental rights, including the rights to life, humane treatment, and personal liberty, which are publicly actionable offenses under the country’s domestic laws that the state is required to investigate 6 The petitioners identify the following persons as victims: Herminio Deras García (extrajudicially executed), María Eustaquia García Alvarado6 (mother), Otilia Flores (spouse), Lorena Deras Flores (daughter), Herminio Deras Flores (son), Alba Luz Deras García (sister), Irma Isabel Deras García (sister), Consuelo Deras García (sister), Luis Rolando Deras García (brother), Elba Flores Ortiz (sister-in-law), Héctor Deras6 (brother), Domingo Deras (father), Sandra Ivon Hernández Deras (niece), José Herminio García Barahona (niece), and Marlen García Pineda (niece).