31. The Commission has competence ratione loci to consider the petition, since it alleges violations of rights protected by the American Convention occurring within the territory of a state party thereto. The IACHR has temporal competence insofar as the duty to respect and ensure the rights protected in the American Convention was in force for the State at the time the violations alleged in the petition are said to have occurred. Finally the Commission has competence ratione materiae because the petition alleges violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. B. Other requirements for the admissibility of the petition 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 32. Article 46 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." This requirement exists to ensure the state concerned the opportunity to resolve disputes within its own legal framework. 33. The State argues in this regard that the petition is inadmissible because the petitioner failed to file and exhaust an extraordinary federal appeal before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. The petitioner, for his part, indicates that he exhausted the necessary remedies and considers that the invocation of further remedies would have further delayed the proceedings and been futile. He notes that, when he consulted his attorney as to the possibility of filing an extraordinary appeal before the Supreme Court, the latter informed him that an appeal contesting the amount of compensation awarded would be dismissed as falling outside the scope of the federal remedy. 34. The requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies is not absolute; its application depends on the circumstances of the particular matter. Article 46.2 of the Convention provides that the requirement may be excused: if the legislation of the state concerned fails to afford due process for the protection of the right allegedly violated; if the party alleging violation has been hindered in his or her access to domestic remedies; or if there has been unwarranted delay in the issuance of a final judgment. The system requires that petitioners exhaust only those remedies that are shown to be adequate and effective to remedy the situation denounced. 2 35. In terms of the burden of proof with respect to the requirements of Article 46, it should be noted that, when a petitioner alleges that he or she is unable to prove exhaustion, Article 31 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure establishes that the burden then shifts to the State to demonstrate which specific domestic remedies remain to be exhausted and offer effective relief for the harm alleged. 3 Where the State then makes a showing that a certain remedy should have been used, the burden shifts back to the petitioner to show that it was exhausted or that one of the exceptions under Article 46.2 applies. 36. As noted, the petitioner essentially argues that he exhausted remedies to the extent required, and that the invocation of further remedies would not have provided an adequate or effective remedy. His principal claim in this regard is that the ordinary remedies he had exhausted were 2 The existence of the remedies must be sufficiently certain not only in theory, but also in practice. All domestic systems have multiple remedies, but not all are applicable in all circumstances. If, in a specific case, the remedy is not appropriate, then obviously it need not be exhausted. See I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 63; see also IACHR, Report No. 68/01, Case 12.117, Admissibility, Santos Soto Ramírez et al., Mexico, June 14, 2001, para. 14; and Report No. 83/01, Admissibility, Case 11.581, Zulema Tarazona Arriate et al., Peru, October 10, 2001, para. 24. 3 See also, e.g., I/A Court H.R., Durand and Ugarte Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of May 28, 1999. Series C No. 50, para. 33, citing the extensive line of cases in which the Court has confirmed that, once a petitioner makes a showing that an exception to the requirement applies, it is for the State to indicate which remedies must be exhausted and to demonstrate that those would be effective 6