temporis in that the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected in the American Convention was already in effect for the State on the date when the events alleged in the petition would have occurred. Finally, the Commission is competent ratione materiae, because the petition denounces possible violations of human rights protected in the American Convention. B. Admissibility Requirements 1. Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies 20. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention requires prior exhaustion of the remedies available in the domestic jurisdiction in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law, as a requirement for the admission of complaints regarding the alleged violation of the American Convention. 21. As established by the Inter-American Court, whenever a State claims that a petitioner has not exhausted the relevant domestic remedies, it is required to demonstrate that the remedies that have not been exhausted are “adequate” for remedying the alleged violation and that the function of those remedies within the domestic legal system is suitable to address the infringement of a legal right.12 22. In the instant case, the case file indicates that TGGL’s family took steps for the determination of responsibility of the President and the Blood Bank Director of the Azuay Red Cross by the courts. Specifically on September 29, 1998 a complaint was filed before the Fourth Criminal Court of Azuay, which ordered the opening of proceedings on October 19, 1998. On September 23, 2001, the District Prosecutor of Azuay issued an indictment and ordered the preventive detention of Mariana de Jesús Ramírez Ramírez, an official of the Red Cross of Azuay, as alleged perpetrator. On October 29, 2001, the Fourth Criminal Court of Azuay issued a summons for trial. Given that the accused was a fugitive, the proceeding against her was suspended pending her appearance or capture. 23. The State has not provided information regarding actions taken by the judicial authorities to locate the accused and regain jurisdiction over her. 13 Finally, on February 28, 2005, given that the five-year period established by law had expired 14, the Second Chamber for Criminal, Collusion, and Traffic Matters of the Superior Court of Justice of Azuay declared that the action had lapsed. Also, on March 5, 2002 the family of TGGL filed a civil suit for damages and injury against the President and Director of the blood bank of the Red Cross of the Province of Azuay. On May 18, 2006 the First Civil and Commercial Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Cuenca declared on appeal that the civil suit was void, due to the lapse of the criminal action. 24. In brief, the petitioners allege that the majority of the officials initially investigated were acquitted and the only accused fled. The trial was thus suspended pending her appearance or capture and subsequently the statute of limitation expired due to the passage of time. They consider that their expectation of obtaining a decision and the resulting compensation for damages and injury was thwarted by the lapse of the action and that they have exhausted the 12 See also Article 31(3) of the IAHRC’s Rules of Procedure and I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 64 13 See IACHR. Report No. 69/02, Petition 419/01, Laura Albán Cornejo, paragraph 38. 14 Article 101 of the Penal Code of the Republic of Ecuador establishes that: “All criminal actions lapse over time and under the conditions indicated by the Law. In the exercise of the right established by prescription, the following rules shall be followed: Both in the case of crimes affecting public order to be prosecuted by government and crimes to be prosecuted by private action, a determination shall be made, above all, the crime having been committed, as to whether or not a trial has been initiated. [] in other crimes punishable by prison, when government prosecutes, if there is no trial, the action to prosecute them shall lapse in ten years; in the case of crimes punishable by long-term imprisonment, the action to prosecute them shall lapse in fifteen years. In the case of crimes punishable by prison, the action to prosecute them shall lapse in five years. The time shall be calculated as from the date when the offense was committed. In the same crimes where government prosecutes, if a trial has begun before those time periods expire, the action to continue the case shall lapse according to the same time periods, calculated as from the date of the opening of the proceeding.” 5