states that it does not repudiate or reject the right to community ownership of the land of the Sawhoyamaxa Community. 35. The State indicates in its arguments that both the National Government and the organizations who represent the Sawhoyamaxa seek to satisfy the claim to their ancestral lands, which is why recourse was had to the friendly settlement procedure before the Commission, adding that the current state of the processing of the petition by the Indigenous Community before the Paraguayan authorities does not imply the denial of rights by the State, but the impossibility of realizing them and thereby satisfying the basic needs of the Sawhoyamaxa community so that they can develop their traditional activities. IV. ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence of the Commission temporis, and ratione materiae ratione loci, ratione personae, ratione 36. The petitioners are authorized by Article 44 of the American Convention to present complaints to the Commission, and, with respect to the alleged victims, i.e. the Sawhoyamaxa Community and its members,7 the Paraguayan State undertook to respect and ensure the rights enshrined in the Convention. As for the State, the Commission observes that Paraguay is a state party to the American Convention, having ratified it on August 24, 1989. Accordingly, the Commission is competent ratione personae to examine the complaint. 37. The Commission is competent ratione loci to take cognizance of this petition insofar as it alleges violations of rights protected in the American Convention in the territory of a state party. 38. The Commission is competent ratione temporis insofar as the facts alleged in the petition took place when the obligation to respect and ensure the rights established in the Convention had already entered into force for the Paraguayan State. 39. Finally, the Commission is competent ratione materiae, because the petition alleges violations of human rights contained in the American Convention. B. Admissibility requirements 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 40. Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention establishes as a requirement for a petition to be admitted that domestic remedies first be pursued and exhausted, in keeping with generally recognized principles of international law. Article 46(2)(a) provides that this requirement shall not be applied 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. The case-law of the inter-American system is clear in indicating that only those remedies that are adequate and effective need be exhausted. 41. In relation to the recovery of the ancestral territory of the Indigenous Community, the main motive of the petition, the Commission understands that in Paraguay there are two procedures, one administrative before the INDI-IBR, and the other legislative, before the National Congress. The petitioners have gone before both. 7 The petitioners submitted a census of the Sawhoyamaxa community from 1997. 7