IV. ANALYSIS A. Competence 49. The petitioner is empowered, in principle, by Article 44 of the American Convention to lodge petitions before the Commission. The petition names as alleged victim Jesús Mónica Feria Tinta, whose rights, as enshrined in the American Convention, the Peruvian State was committed to respect and protect. With regard to the State, the Commission observes that Peru has been a State party to the American Convention since July 28, 1978, the date on which it deposited its instrument of ratification of said Convention. Therefore, the Commission has competence ratione personae to examine the petition. 50. Furthermore, the Commission has competence ratione loci to examine the petition inasmuch as it alleges violations of rights protected by the American Convention that took place within the jurisdiction of the State. The Commission has competence ratione temporis to examine the petition because the obligation to respect and protect the rights enshrined in the American Convention was already binding upon the State at the date on which the events alleged in the petition took place. Finally, the Commission has competence ratione materiae, because the petition alleges violations of human rights enshrined in the American Convention. 51. Moreover, although the petitioner has not invoked Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, along with Article 7 of the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence Against Women (the Convention of Belém do Pará), by virtue of the principle iura novit curia, the Commission will examine the alleged violations of said articles, as will be described in the appropriate section of this report. 52. The State of Peru ratified the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture on March 28, 1991. The petition in question refers to events that took place after the date on which these international instruments were ratified. Furthermore, the Peruvian State ratified the Convention of Belém do Pará on February 4, 1996, and deposited the corresponding instrument of ratification on April 6, 1996. Therefore, the Commission considers it relevant to highlight that it has competence ratione temporis in the present case by virtue of the time that has elapsed given that the complaint refers to possible incidents of sexual violence for which those responsible have not been investigated, brought to trial or punished, up to the date of the preparation of the present report. Therefore, this would mean that the State had tolerated a situation of impunity with long-lasting effects continuing after the date on which Peru submitted to the above-mentioned Convention of Belém do Pará. 3 B. Other requirements for Admissibility 1. Exhaustion of remedies under domestic law 53. 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. 54. 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: a) domestic law does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right in question; b) the alleged victim has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law or; c) there has been an unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. 3 See general I/A Court H.R., Castro Castro Prison Case. Judgment November 25, 2006. Series C. 160, in particular paragraphs 27.6, 292, 306, 344 and 346, that examine and apply the obligation to investigate, bring to trial and punish contained in the Convention of Belém do Pará. 8