32. It concludes that the State is the only one that can dispose of its properties and has the authority to grant mining licenses. It can therefore decide, pursuant to the laws regulating the subject, to grant mining concessions, considering that those holding the licenses do not own the properties in question. 33. In conclusion, the State contends that, based on the lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the petition is inadmissible and asks the IACHR to declare as much. IV. ANALYSIS OF JURISDICTION AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Jurisdiction 34. The petitioners are in principle empowered by Articles 44 of the American Convention and 23 of the Rules of Procedure to submit petitions before the Commission. The petition indicates an alleged violation of the rights enshrined in the American Convention to the detriment of individual persons whose rights the State of Guatemala committed to respecting and guaranteeing on May 25, 1978, the date on which it deposited its ratification instrument. As a consequence, the Commission has ratione personae jurisdiction to examine the petition. Likewise, the Commission has ratione loci competence to hear the petition insofar as the petition alleges violations of rights that would have taken place within the territory of Guatemala. 35. The Commission has ratione temporis competence, as the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected by the American Convention was already in force for the State on the date on which the facts alleged in the petition would have taken place. Finally, the Commission has ratione materiae competence due to the fact that the petition refers to alleged violations of human rights protected under the aforementioned instrument. B. Admissibility requirements 1. Exhaustion of remedies under domestic law 36. Articles 46(1)(a) of the American Convention and 31(1) of the Rules of Procedure require the prior exhaustion of the remedies available in domestic jurisdiction—in keeping with the generally recognized principles of international law—as a requirement for the admission of the claims presented in the petition. The purpose of this requirement is to allow domestic authorities to hear cases of alleged violations of protected rights and, where appropriate, to resolve the situation before it is brought before an international authority. For their part, Articles 46(2) of the Convention and 31(2) of the Rules of Procedure stipulate that the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies is not applicable when i) 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; ii) 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 iii) there has been an unjustified delay in the ruling on the aforementioned remedies. 37. Regarding the land titling process, the petitioners allege that there is no legal process to establish the collective rights of indigenous peoples. The State maintains that it provides measures of judicial protection to safeguard the economic, social, cultural, and environmental interests of indigenous communities, but there is still no legislation specifically protecting the land of indigenous communities. The regularization process thus ensures the existence, value, use, and enjoyment of their land until it is delimited, demarcated, and titled. It also argues that the community did not launch a special sentence execution proceeding to replace the missing page nor did it file a civil suit for damages. 38. The Commission recalls that the procedures to title indigenous or tribal communal lands must be effective and must allow the affected communities to bring them, not solely private individuals. 2 In that sense, the mere possibility of recognizing rights through certain judicial processes cannot replace the actual 2 IACHR, Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ Rights over Their Ancestral Lands and Natural Resources: Norms and Jurisprudence of the Inter-American Human Rights System, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.Doc. 56/09, December 30, 2009, para. 365. 6