A. Competence ratione personae, ratione temporis, rationaemateriae of the Inter-American Commission ratione loci and 33. The Commission notes that Peru has been a party to the American Convention since July 28, 1978, the date on which it deposited the appropriate instrument of ratification. 34. The petitioner is entitled under Article 44 of the American Convention to file complaints to the Commission. The petition identifies as the alleged victim an individual in respect of whom Peru undertook to respect and guarantee the rights enshrined in the American Convention. The Commission is therefore competent ratione personae to hear the petition. 35. The Commission is competent ratione loci to hear the petition inasmuch as the latter alleges violations of rights protected in the American Convention that took place within the territory of a State party to the Convention. The Commission is also competent ratione temporis insofar as the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected in the American Convention was already in force for the State at the date on which the acts alleged in the petition are supposed to have occurred. Lastly, the Commission is competent ratione materiae, insofar as the petition denounces violations of human rights that are protected by the American Convention. B. Other requirements for admissibility of the petition 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 36. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention provides that the admissibility of a petition presented to the Commission is subject to the requirement "that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law” Article 46(2) of the Convention provides for three situations in which the rule requiring the exhaustion of domestic remedies shall not apply: where 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) where 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) where there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. 37. As seen above, the parties to the present case are in dispute over the question of the exhaustion of domestic remedies in Peru and it is therefore for the Inter-American Commission to rule on the matter. On the one hand, the State argues that the stipulated requirement has not been fulfilled and that none of the abovementioned exceptions should therefore apply; on the other hand, the petitioner alleges that due process of law did not exist in Peru for the protection of rights alleged to have been violated. 38. When a State contends that the remedies under domestic law have not been exhausted, it has a responsibility to indicate which remedies should be exhausted and to demonstrate their effectiveness.11 In such case, the burden of responsibility then shifts to the petitioners who 11 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Preliminary Exceptions. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 88; Case of Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales. Preliminary Exceptions. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C, No. 2, para. 8; Case of Godínez Cruz. Preliminary Exceptions. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C. No. 3, para. 90; Case of Gangaram Panday. Preliminary Exceptions. Judgment of December 4, 1991. Series C, No. 12, para. 38; Case of Neira Alegría et al. Preliminary Exceptions. Judgment of December 11, 1991. Series C No. 13, para. 30; Case of Castillo Páez. Preliminary Exceptions. Judgment of January 30, 1996. Series C, No. 24, para. 40; Case of Loayza Tamayo. Preliminary Exceptions. Judgment of January 31, 1996. Series C, No. 25, para. 40; Exceptions to the exhaustion of remedies under domestic law (Articles 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. Series A, No. 11, para. 41; Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. Preliminary Exceptions. Judgment of September 4, 1998. Series C, No. 41, para. 63. 6