22. In principle, under Article 44 of the American Convention the petitioner is authorized to lodge petitions with the Commission. The alleged victims named in the petition are persons whose Convention-protected rights the Colombian State undertook to respect and guarantee. As for the respondent State, Colombia has been a State party to the American Convention since July 31, 1973, the date on which it deposited its instrument of ratification. Therefore, the Commission is competent ratione personae to examine this petition. 23. The Commission is also competent ratione loci to take up the petition, inasmuch as it alleges violations of Convention-protected rights said to have occurred within the territory of Colombia, a State party to the Convention. The Commission is competent ratione temporis, since the obligation to respect and ensure the rights protected under the American Convention was already in effect for Colombia on the date the facts alleged were said to have occurred Finally, the Commission is competent ratione materiae, because the petition alleges violations of rights protected under the American Convention. B. Admissibility requirements 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies and timeliness of the petition 24. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention requires that for petitions to be admissible, the remedies under domestic law must have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. 25. Article 46(2) of the Convention states that the rule requiring exhaustion of local remedies shall not apply when: a. 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. 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. there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. As the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has written, when a State alleges a petitioner’s failure to exhaust the remedies under domestic law, it bears the burden of showing that remedies remain that are “suitable” to address an infringement of a legal right; in other words, the function of the remedies within the domestic legal system is suitable to protect the violated right.11 26. In the present case, the State is arguing that the petition does not satisfy the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies, stipulated in Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention, since a criminal case on the subject matter of the complaint is pending. 12 The petitioner, for its part, is alleging that the exception provided for in Article 46(2)(c) to the rule requiring exhaustion of local remedies applies in this case because of the unwarranted delay and ineffectiveness of the criminal investigation at the domestic level. 27. The Commission notes that more than four years have passed since the events that are the subject of the complaint occurred, yet the investigation instituted by the prosecutor’s office into the crimes of forced displacement and threats are still only in the preliminary phase and the authors of the crimes have not been identified. The Commission observes that as a general rule, a criminal investigation should be conducted swiftly in order to protect the victims’ interests, preserve the evidence and even protect the rights of those persons who become suspects during the course of the investigation. As the Inter-American Court has written, while every criminal investigation must meet certain legal requirements, the rule of prior exhaustion must never lead to a halt or delay that would render international action in support of the defenseless victim 11 12 I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, paragraph 64. The State’s brief of observations, DDH.GOI/60162/2802, received at the IACHR on December 12, 2006. 5