party to the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture since June 22, 1987. Accordingly, the Commission has jurisdiction ratione personae to examine the claims presented. 30. The IACHR has jurisdiction ratione loci to consider the petition, because the alleged violation of rights protected in the American Convention occurred within the territory of Mexico, a State party to that treaty. The Inter-American Commission also has jurisdictionratione temporis because the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected in the American Convention and in the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture was already in effect for the State at the time the alleged events took place. Finally, the Commission has jurisdiction ratione materiae because the petition complains of violations of human rights protected by the American Convention and by the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. B. Other requirements for the admissibility of the petition 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 31. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention specifies that, in order for a case to be admitted, "remedies under domestic law [must] have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law." Article 46(2) of the Convention specifies three situations under which the exhaustion of domestic remedies rule does not apply: (a) if 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) if 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 (c) if there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. 32. In the present case, the parties are in dispute over the exhaustion of domestic remedies in Mexico, and the Commission must therefore pronounce itself on this point. For its part, the State maintains that this requirement of the Convention has not been fulfilled, while the petitioners argue that domestic remedies were ineffective, and that there has been unwarranted delay that absolves them of the requirement to await the conclusion of the investigations initiated in that country with respect to the complaint. 33. When a State argues that domestic remedies have not been exhausted, it is incumbent upon the State to indicate those remedies that must be pursued, and to demonstrate their effectiveness.25 In that case, it is up to the petitioners to demonstrate that those remedies were exhausted, or that one of the exceptions of Article 46(2) of the Convention applies. 34. The State in fact devoted a considerable portion of its first report to explaining the actions taken to assist possessors Cabrera García and Montiel Flores in terms of their personal protection and, with respect to their legal situation, to explain the motions pending before the regular courts and the PGJM. In its second communication, the State argues more directly that domestic remedies have not been exhausted, and it refers to the appeal that was pending at that time before the Mexican Federal Justice system. 35. On the other hand, the petitioners have maintained since their first communication to the Commission that the remedies pending decision at that time were not suitable for resolving the situation submitted to the IACHR. In the case of the preliminary military investigation, the petitioners argue that the PGJM lacks the necessary impartiality to conduct an investigation into alleged violations of human rights involving military personnel. With respect to the Federal 25 I-A Court, Velásquez Rodríguez case, Judgment on Preliminary Objections, para. 88. See also the following cases: Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987, Series C Nº 2, para. 8; Godínez Cruz, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987, Series C Nº 3, para. 8; Gangaram Panday, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of Dec. 4, 1991, Series C No. 12, para. 38; Neira Alegría et al., Preliminary Objections, Judgment of Dec. 11, 1991, Series C Nº 13, para. 30; Castillo Páez, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of January 30, 1996, Series C Nº 24, para. 40; Loayza Tamayo, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of Jan. 31, 1996, Series C No. 25, para. 40; Exceptions to Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies (Articles 46(1), 46(2)(a) & 46(2)(b) American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-11/90 of August 10, 1990, Series A Nº11, para. 41. 7