V. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY AND COMPETENCE A. The Commission’s competence ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis, and rationi loci 52. The petitioners are eligible under Article 44 of the American Convention to submit a petition to the IACHR. The alleged victims are persons for whom the State of Guatemala undertook to respect and ensure the rights guaranteed in the Convention. The IACHR therefore has ratione personae competence to examine this petition. 53. The IACHR has ratione loci competence to examine the petition because it alleges that violations of rights protected by the American Convention occurred in the territory of Guatemala, a State party to that treaty. 54. The IACHR has ratione temporis competence, because the alleged facts occurred when the obligation to respect and ensure the rights guaranteed in Convention was in force for the State, since Guatemala ratified the American Convention on Human Rights on May 25, 1978. Finally, the IACHR has ratione materiae competence because the petition alleges violations of human rights protected in the American Convention. B. 1. Other requirements for admissibility of the petition Exhaustion of domestic remedies 55. Article 46.1.a of the American Convention stipulates that for a petition lodged with the Inter-American Commission pursuant to Article 44 of the Convention to be admissible, remedies under domestic law must have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. The purpose of this requirement is to allow national authorities to be seized of the alleged violation of a protected right and, if appropriate, to resolve it before it is considered at the international level. 56. The requirement for prior exhaustion of domestic remedies applies when the domestic legislation affords adequate and effective resources for remedying the alleged violation. In this regard, Article 46.2 stipulates that the requirement shall not be applicable when domestic legislation does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right in question; or when the alleged victim has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law; or when there has been an unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. As provided in Article 31 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, when the petitioner alleges one of these exceptions, it shall be up to the State to demonstrate that the remedies under domestic law have not been previously exhausted, unless it is clearly evident from the record. 57. According to the principles of international law, reflected in the jurisprudence of the Commission and the Inter-American Court, the defendant State may expressly or tacitly waive invocation of this rule.22 Additionally, in order to be 22 See IACHR, Report Nº 69/05, petition 960/03, Admissibility, Iván Eladio Torres, Argentina, October 13, 2005, para. 42; I-A Court, Ximenes Lopes vs. Brazil. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of November 30, 2005. Series C No. 139, para. 5; I-A Court, Case of the Moiwana Community. Judgment of June 15, 2005. 9