1. Competence of the Commission ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione temporis, and ratione materiae 38. The petitioners are entitled under Article 44 of the American Convention to lodge complaints with the IACHR on behalf of the alleged victims. The alleged victims named in the petition were under the jurisdiction of the Venezuelan State when the alleged facts occurred. As for the State, Venezuela ratified the American Convention on August 9, 1977. Therefore, the Commission has competence ratione personae to review the petition. 39. The Commission has competence ratione loci to review the petition since it alleges violations of rights protected by the American Convention to have occurred within the territory of a State Party to it. 40. The Commission also has competence ratione temporis since the obligation to respect and ensure the rights protected by the American Convention was in force for the State when the violations alleged in the petition took place. 41. Finally, the Commission has competence ratione materiae because the petition alleges violations of human rights that are protected by the American Convention. 2. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 42. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention provides that in order for a petition lodged before the Commission under Article 44 of the Convention to be admissible, the 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 ensure that the State in question is aware of the alleged violation of a protected right, and has the opportunity to resolve controversies within its own legal framework before they are taken to an international body. 43. The requirement for prior exhaustion applies when the remedies actually available within the national system are appropriate and effective to rectify the alleged violation. Article 46(2) specifies that this requirement does not apply when: the domestic legislation does not afford due process of law to protect the right in question; the alleged victim did not have access to the remedies under domestic law; or there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under those remedies. As is indicated in Article 31 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission, when the petitioner alleges one of these exceptions, it is up to the State to demonstrate that the remedies under domestic law have not been previously exhausted, unless that is clearly evident from the record. 44. As is inferred from the principles of international law and reflected in the precedents set by the Inter-American Commission and Court, first, the State can expressly or tacitly relinquish the right to invoke this rule.2 [2] Secondly, in order for 2 IACHR, Report Nº 69/05, petition 960/03, Admissibility, Iván Eladio Torres, Argentina, October 13, 2005, para. 42; I/A Court H.R., Ximenes Lopes case. Preliminary Objection. Judgment of November 30, 2005. Series C No. 139, para. 5; I/A Court H.R., Moiwana Community Case. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 49; and I/A Court H.R., Serrano Cruz 8