IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence ratione materiae, ratione personae, ratione temporis and ratione loci of the Commission 38. The petitioners are empowered, in principle, by Article 44 of the American Convention to lodge petitions before the Commission. The victims named in the petition are individual people whom the Ecuadorian State has committed to respect and to guarantee the rights enshrined in the Convention. The Commission notes that Ecuador has been a State party to the Convention since December 28, 1977, the date in which it ratified the instrument. Therefore, the Commission has ratio personae competence to examine the petition. 39. Likewise, the Commission has ratione loci competence to examine the petition since this petition alleges violations of rights protected in the American Convention which have taken place within the territory of Ecuador, a State party to the aforementioned treaty. The Commission has ratione temporis competence because the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected in the Convention was already in effect for the State on the date in which the events alleged in the petition took place. Finally, the Commission has ratione materiae competence because the petition reports possible violations of human rights that are protected by the American Convention. B. Admissibility Requirements 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 40. For a grievance be admitted for a presumed violation of the provisions of the American Convention, it must comply with the requirements established in Article 46(1) of that international instrument. Article 46(1) of the Convention establishes that in order to determine the admissibility of a petition or a communication presented before the IACHR in accordance to Articles 44 or 45 of the Convention, the remedies under domestic law must have been pursued and exhausted, according to generally recognized principles of international law.9 41. In this sense, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Court”) has manifested that “[…] according to generally recognized principles of international law and international practice, the rule requiring prior exhaustion of domestic remedies is conceived in the interest of the State, since it seeks to excuse it from responding before an international organization for actions imputed to it, before having had the occasion to remedy the matter with its own means.”10 In attention to this, the State’s argument that domestic remedies have not been exhausted must be heard in the admissibility phase of the procedures before the Commission.11 42. In this case, the petitioners argue that on May 17, 1997, that is, one day after the kidnapping or disappearance of Mr. Palma, his common-law wife, Lidia Guadalupe Bravo, reported the event at the Eleventh Criminal Court of Manabi. They also maintain that 9 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, case of the Moiwana Community Vs. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Ser. C. No. 124. para. 48; Case of Tibi Vs. Ecuador, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Ser. C. No. 114. para. 48; and Case of Herrera Ulloa Vs. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Ser. C. No. 107. para. 80. 10 11 Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The Matter of Viviana Gallardo et. al. Ser. A. No. 101. para. 26. Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Case of Caso Nogueira de Carvalho et.al. Vs. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Ser. C. No. 137. para. 49; and the case of The Serrano Cruz Sisters Vs. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of November 23, 2004. Ser. C. No. 118, para. 135.