7 IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. Commission's Competence ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis and ratione loci 33. The petitioners are entitled, in principle, under Article 44 of the American Convention to lodge claims before the Commission. The petition states that the alleged victims are individuals, with respect to whom the State of Venezuela has undertaken to respect and guarantee the rights enshrined in the American Convention. As far as concerns the State, the Commission points out that Venezuela has been a State party to the American Convention since August 9, 1977, the date upon which it deposited its instrument of ratification. Therefore, the Commission has competence ratione personae to examine the petition. 34. The Commission has competence ratione loci to examine the petition since it alleges violations of rights protected in these instruments, which took place within the territory of Venezuela, a State party to the said treaties. The Commission has competence ratione temporis regarding the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected in the American Convention as they were in force for the State on the date on which the actions alleged in the petition occurred. Finally, the Commission has competence ratione materiae, because the petition complains of possible violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. B. Requirements for the Admissibility of the Petition 1. Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies 35. Article 46.1.a of the American Convention provides that, in order for a petition filed under Article 44 of the Convention to be declared admissible by the Inter-American Commission, it is necessary that domestic legal remedies have been begun and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. The purpose of this requirement is to allow the national authorities to become aware of the alleged violation of a protected right and, if appropriate, to have the opportunity of resolving the matter before being examined by an international jurisdiction. 36. The Commission observes that the purpose of the current petition refers specifically to the facts related on the one hand to the alleged victims' arbitrary deprivation of liberty and the domestic trial aimed at obtaining compensation, and on the other hand to the alleged lack of protection for Olimpíades Gonzáles on the part of the State and the lack of results in the criminal investigation started due to his death. 37. In view of the various domestic remedies begun firstly by four of the alleged victims and then by two of them, the Commission will examine the fulfillment of the requirement of the exhaustion of domestic remedies in the following order: i) the preventive detention of Belkis Mirelis, Fernando and María Angélica Gonzáles and Wilmer Antonio Barliza Gonzáles and the alleged lack of an effective remedy for obtaining compensation; ii) the preventive detention of Olimpíades and Luís Guillermo Gonzáles; and (iii) in relation to the death of Olimpíades Gonzáles. a. Regarding the Preventive Detention of Belkis Mirelis, Fernando and María Angélica Gonzáles and Wilmer Antonio Barliza Gonzáles and the Alleged Lack of an Effective Remedy for Obtaining Compensation