7 compliance w ith deliberate instructions issued by state authorities, but w ere instead caused by a de facto situation that escaped their control. 35. Regarding the investigation conducted by the National Human Rights Commission, it indicates that the CNDH sent assistant inspectors and medical experts attached to the Commission to the site of the incidents and to the Santiaguito Detention Center to carry out assessments in accordance w ith the Istanbul Prot ocol. It reports that individual records w ere prepared of all the people w ho w ere arrested, including the alleged victims. It notes that in its preliminary report of May 22, 2006, the CNDH documented the existence of possible human rights violations and, i n its recommendation 38/2006, it issued recommendations for the authorities of the state of México and other authorities. Subsequently, it notes, the CNDH acknow ledged that the state authorities took sufficient actions to follow up on the recommendations and ruled that they had been complied w ith. 36. Mexico further contends that domestic remedies have not been exhausted and, consequently, that the petition should be declared inadmissible. Specifically, it notes that the petitioners did not file for indirect amparo proceedings or the review remedy they could have lodged subsequently should they have failed to secure a favorable result in the indirect amparo judgment. In addition, w ere the indirect amparo to be admitted and w ere new proceedings to be ordered, if the judge w ere to issue an unfavorable final judgment then direct amparo w ould be available to the petitioners. Mexico contends that the criminal investigation remains ongoing and it reaffirms its commitment to continue the investigations until the truth of the matter is revealed, individual responsibilities are determined, and the guilty are punished. 37. The alleged lack of impartiality is, it says, based on statements made to the media. Regarding the classification of the offenses, it points out that tort ure w as criminalized in the state of México’ s Law to Prevent and Punish Torture, enacted in 1994. Regarding the unw arranted delay, Mexico points out that this particular case poses a challenge on account of the difficulty in establishing the specific ident ities of the probable perpetrators and in linking them w ith given acts. IV. ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence 38. First of all, the petitioners are entitled, under Article 44 of the American Convention, to lodge complaints w ith the Commission. The petition names, as its alleged victims, individual persons w ith respect to w hom the Mexican State had assumed the commitment of respecting and ensuring the rights enshrined in the American Convention. With reference to the State, the Commission notes that Mexico has been a state party to the American Convention since March 24, 1981, w hen it deposited its instrument of ratification. Similarly, Mexico ratified the Convention de Belém do Pará on November 12, 1998, and the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture on June 22, 1987. The Commission therefore has competence ratione personae to examine the complaint. In addition, the Commission has competence ratione loci to examine the petition, in that it alleges violations of rights prot ected by the American Convention, the Convention of Belém do Pará, and the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, w hich took place w ithin the territory of Mexico, a state party to those treaties. 39. The Commission has competence ratione temporis in that the obligation of respecting and ensuring the rights protected in the American Convention, the Convention of Belém do Pará, and the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture w as already in force for the State on the date that t he incidents described in the petition allegedly took place. Finally, the Commission has competence ratione materiae, because the petition alleges possible violations of human rights violations protected by the American Convention, the Convention of Belém do Pará, and the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture.