inadequacy of the remedy, all of which means that the exception described in Article 46(2)(c) of the Convention is applicable in this case. 33.With regard to the violations alleged, the petitioners state that the events constitute violations of the rights protected in Articles 4(1) (Life); 5(1) and 5(2) (Humane Treatment); 7 (Personal Liberty); 19 (Rights of the Child); 8.1 (Judicial Guarantees); and 25.1 (Judicial Protection), all in relation to the obligation to respect laid down in Article 1(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of Eduardo José Landaeta. They also state that the events violate rights enshrined in Article 5(1) (Personal Integrity); 8(1) (Judicial Guarantees); and 25(1) (Judicial Protection) all in relation to the obligation to protect enshrined in Article 1(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of Ignacio Landaeta Muñoz and María Mejías, father and mother, respectively, of Eduardo José Landaeta Mejías. B. State 34.The State has made no response to the petition even though this was transmitted on July 24, 2006, and a period of two months given for the presentation of its observations. IV. ANALYSIS A.Competence 1. Competence of the Commission temporis, and ratione materiae ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione 35.The petitioners are empowered by Article 44 of the Convention to lodge petitions on behalf of the alleged victims. For its part, the State of Venezuela ratified the American Convention on August 9, 1977. Consequently, the Commission has competenceratione personae to examine the petition. 36.The Commission has competence ratione loci to examine the petition in as much as it alleges violations of rights protected by the American Convention that took place within the territory of a State party to the said treaty. 37.The Commission also has competence ratione temporis because the obligation to respect and protect the rights enshrined in the American Convention was already in force for the State at the date on which the violations of rights alleged in the petition took place. 38.Finally, the Commission has competence ration materiae, because the petition alleges violations of human rights enshrined in the American Convention. 2. Exhaustion of remedies under domestic law 39.Article 46(1) of the American Convention states that for a petition lodged before the Commission to be admissible according to Article 44 of the Convention, it is necessary that all remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that the State in question is informed of the alleged violation of a protected right and, where appropriate, resolves it before it goes before an international body. 40.The requirement of prior exhaustion is applicable when domestic legislation does in fact provide remedies that are adequate and effective to remedy the alleged violation. In this sense, Article 46(2) specifies that the requirement is not applicable when domestic law does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right in question; or if the alleged victim has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law; or if there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. As stated in Article 31 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission, when a petitioner alleges one of these exceptions it shall be up to the State concerned to demonstrate that the remedies under domestic law have not been previously exhausted, unless that is clearly evident from the record. 5