38. The State argues that the domestic provisions provide for suitable and effective judicial remedies for pursuing and eventually obtaining reparation for damages stemming from unlawful activity attributable to state agents. It argues that the claimant has had access to the domestic jurisdiction, has enjoyed adequate legal counsel, has been able to argue in defense of his rights, and his claim has been subject to a final pronouncement within a reasonable time, all in the context of the most absolute and unrestricted respect for due process. 39. It argues that the petitioners are unhappy with the final result of the judicial dispute, and that the purpose of the petition is tied to the criteria for interpreting Law No. 24,043, without the circumstance of Mr. Almeida’s situation not falling under that provision being disputed. What is questioned is the supposed injustice of not including situations such as that which the alleged victim states he has suffered. It argues that the petition is inadmissible given that an effort is being made to use the IACHR as a court of appeals. IV. ANALYSIS A. Competence of the Commissionratione personae, ratione loci, ratione temporis, and ratione materiae 40. The petitioners have standing to file a petition with the Commission as provided for in Article 44 of the American Convention. The petition notes as the alleged victim an individual with respect to whom the State has assumed the commitment to respect and ensure the rights recognized by the American Convention. As for the State, the Commission takes note that Argentina has been a state party to the American Convention since September 5, 1984, the date on which it deposited its instrument of ratification. Therefore, the Commission is competent ratione personae to examine the petition for the events that have occurred since that date. In this respect, it should be noted that this petition raises an alleged denial of justice and reparation, which is said to persist to this day, in relation to the legal action filed in 1995 and the subsequent proceedings. 41. The Commission is competent ratione locito consider the petition, since it alleges violations of rights protected by the American Convention in the territory of a state party. The IACHR is competent rationetemporisin relation to the events that occurred after its entry into force for the State. Finally the Commission is competent rationemateriaebecause the petition adduces violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. B. Admissibility requirements 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 42. 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. 43. As established in the Commission’s Rules of Procedure and stated by the Inter-American Court has said, whenever a state alleges that petitioners have failed to exhaust domestic remedies, it has the burden of identifying which remedies must be exhausted, and must show that the remedies that have not been exhausted are “adequate” to address the violation alleged, that is, that the purpose of those remedies in the system of domestic law is suitable for protecting the legal situation infringed. 7 44. In this respect, the State alleges that domestic remedies were not duly exhausted since the action for damages had not been exhausted. For their part, the petitioners argue that domestic remedies were exhausted with the decision on the complaint appeal (recurso de queja) issued by the Supreme Court and that 31(3) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. See also I/A Court H.R. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 64. 7Article