respect and guarantee the rights enshrined in the Convention. Therefore, the Commission has jurisdiction ratione personae to examine the petition. 35. The Commission has jurisdiction ratione materiae because the petition complains of possible violations of human rights protected under the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man and the American Convention. 36. The Commission has jurisdiction ratione temporis because the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected initially in the American Declaration and subsequently in the American Convention was already binding upon the State on the date the facts alleged in the petition were said to have occurred. The Commission notes that some of the alleged deeds violating the human rights of José Luis Ibsen Peña and Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas occurred prior to July 19, 1979, when Bolivia ratified the American Convention, by virtue of which the applicable source of law is, in principle, the American Declaration. This however does not preclude the Commission from determining in its report on the merits of the petition that a continuous situation of human rights violations exists, in which case the American Declaration and the American Convention would apply concurrently. On this point, both the Inter-American Court and the Commission have held that the American Declaration is a source of international obligations for member states of the OAS.9 The IACHR has also confirmed "its practice of extending the scope of application of the American Convention to facts of a continuing nature that violate human rights prior to its ratification, but whose effects remain after its entry into force”.10 The case law of the inter-American system has held that forced disappearance of persons is a continuing or permanent crime and that its effects extend for as long as the fate or whereabouts of the alleged victims remain undetermined.11 Consequently, the characteristics of this crime would place the State in a continuing violation of its international obligations, and therefore the Commission has jurisdiction ratione temporisto apply the American Convention. 37. The Commission has jurisdiction ratione loci to take cognizance of the petition, inasmuch as it alleges violations of rights protected under the American Declaration and the American Convention said to have taken place within the territory of a State party to those instruments. The Commission notes that, in this case, the forced disappearance of two persons is at issue. Recognizing that Bolivia ratified the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons on May 5, 1999, the Commission will decide during the merits stage, and depending on factual findings, on applicability of the American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons to this case. B. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 38. As a requirement for admissibility, Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention requires that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted. 39. In situations such as that posed by this petition, which includes allegations of torture and forced disappearance, the domestic remedies that must be considered for admissibility purposes are those related to the investigation and punishment of the persons responsible for those deeds, which translate in domestic legislation into crimes that are prosecuted ex officio. The petitioners invoke the exception to exhaustion of domestic remedies provided in Article 9 See Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Interpretation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man Within the Framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-10/89, July 14, 1989, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. A) No. 10 (1989). paras. 35-45; IACHR, James Terry Roach and Jay Pinkerton vs.United States, Case 9647, Res. 3/87, 22 September 1987, Annual Report 1986-1987, paras. 46-49, Rafael FerrerMazorra et al; vs United States, Report N° 51/01, case 9903, 4 April 2001. See also Article 20 of the Statute of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. 10 IACHR, Report N° 95/98 (Chile), 9 December 1998, Annual Report 1998, para. 27. See also IACHR, Annual Report 2001, Report Nº 82/01 – Anibal Miranda, Case 12.000 (Paraguay), para 14. The Commission has also held that “once the American Convention entered into force […], the Convention and not the Declaration became the source of legal norms for application by the Commission insofar as the petition alleges violations of substantially identical rights set forth in both instruments and those claimed violations do not involve a continuing situation”. Report N° 38/99 (Argentina), 11 March 1999, Annual Report 1998, para. 13 11 I-A Court, Trujillo Oroza Vs. Bolivia, Reparations, Judgment of 27 February 2002; I-A Court, Blake, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 2 July 1996. 6