prescribes that "any person or group of persons, or any nongovernmental entity legally recognized in one or more member states of the Organization" may petition the Commission concerning complaints of violation of the Convention by a State Party to the detriment of one or more individuals. 37. The Commission has jurisdiction ratione temporis because the events complained of allegedly took place when the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights established in the Convention was already in force for Honduras, which ratified the Convention on September 8, 1977. 38. Lastly, the Commission has jurisdiction ratione materiae because the petition complains of events that, if proven, would be violations of Articles 1 (obligation to respect rights) 8 (right to a fair trial) 21 (right to private property) and 25 (right to judicial protection). 39. Concerning the petitioner's quest for a finding that Honduras violated ILO Covenant 169, the Commission has no jurisdiction in the matter, although it may and must use it as a standard of interpretation of the obligations prescribed by the Convention, as established in Article 29 thereof. B. Other admissibility requirements 1. Exhaustion of internal remedies 40. Article 46.1 of the Convention states that for a petition or communication filed under Articles 44 or 45 to be admitted by the Commission a) the remedies under domestic law must have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law.6 This provision does not apply, according to subparagraph 2, 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. 41. Both the Court and the Commission have repeatedly declared that, under generally recognized principles of international law and practice, the rule requiring prior exhaustion of internal remedies is intended for the benefit of the State, to spare it from having to defend against charges before an international body before having had an opportunity to remedy them on its own.7 42. In this case, the State alleges that the petition is inadmissible because domestic remedies have not been exhausted by the petitioner, who should have completed the administrative procedure provided in the Agrarian Reform Law and the Administrative Procedure Law. The State argues that this administrative procedure may be set in motion ex officio by the INA or by a complaint from a group or a community filing a sworn affidavit, and that the proceedings are conducted to some extent ex officio and the appeal is to the National Agrarian Council, which serves as a High Court for agrarian matters. 43. The petitioner, for its part, argues for the admissibility of the petition on the basis of the exception in Article 46.2.b of the Convention and Article 31.2.b of the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR, contending that it was materially impossible to exhaust the remedies because the plaintiffs were denied access to or the possibility of exhausting them. Such legal actions as they were able to take domestically were ineffective, resulting in a continual violation of the right of the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz to peaceably enjoy the territory recognized to it by the State itself. 6 See I/A Court H.R., Exceptions to the Exhaustion of Internal Remedies (Article 46.1, 46.2.a and 46.2.b of the American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-11/90 of August 10, 1990, Ser. A No. 11, para. 17 7 See Report N° 5/04, Petition 720/00, Admissibility, Eduardo Kimel, Argentina, February 24, 2004, para. 31; I/A Court H.R., Viviana Gallardo et al., November 13, 1981, Ser. A No. G 101/81, para. 26 6