27. Regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the State maintains that domestic criminal procedure remedies have not been exhausted. However, it indicates that it is not opposed to the Gudiel family’s petition for the issuance of an admissibility report. IV. ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence of the Commission temporis, and ratione materiæ ratione personæ, ratione loci, ratione 28. In principle, the petitioners are empowered by Article 44 of the American Convention to submit petitions to the Commission. The petition indicates as the alleged victims, individuals with respect to whom the State of Guatemala guaranteed to respect and guarantee rights established in the American Convention. Regarding the State, the Commission indicates that Guatemala has been a State Party to the American Convention since May 25, 1978, the date it deposited its ratification instrument. Therefore, the Commission is competent ratione personae to examine the petition. In addition, the Commission is competent ratione loci to hear the petition, in that it alleges violations of rights protected in the American Convention that occurred within the territory of Guatemala, a State Party to that convention. 29. The Commission is competent ratione 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 reports possible violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. B. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 30. Article 46.1.a of the American Convention provides that in order for a complaint filed with the Inter-American Commission to be admissible in accordance with Article 44 of the Convention, domestic remedies must have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with internationally recognized principles of international law. The purpose of this requirement is to allow domestic authorities to learn of the alleged violation of a protected right and, if appropriate, to have the opportunity to resolve the situation before it is heard by an international body. For its part, Article 46.2 of the Convention establishes three situations in which the exhaustion of domestic remedies rule does not apply: 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; and c) there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. These assumptions do not refer to the formal existence of such remedies alone but to their adequacy and effectiveness as well. 31. In the instant case, the State maintains that although domestic remedies have not been exhausted, it does not oppose the petition. When a State alleges that domestic remedies have not been exhausted, it is its responsibility to indicate which remedies must be exhausted and to demonstrate their effectiveness. In such cases, the petitioners bear the procedural burden of demonstrating that such remedies were exhausted or that one of the exceptions under Article 46.2 of the American Convention applies. 32. The petitioners indicate that the murder of Florentín Gudiel Ramos occurred in 2004 and the case is still in the investigation phase, without effective measures and results. Thus, they maintain that the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies does not apply. 33. Without analyzing the arguments developed by the parties regarding the alleged violation of judicial guarantees and judicial protection, the Commission notes that Florentín Gudiel Ramos was murdered in 2004. Considering the modus operandi of his murder, the context in which it occurred, and the prior and subsequent threats suffered by his relatives, the Commission observes that the State has not provided information regarding procedures conducted to determine who was responsible, nor has the State informed the Commission 5