28. It adds that in June 2003, the Bolivian government adopted a Supreme Decree to continue the work of the National Commission for Investigation of Disappeared Citizens by processing information for the discovery of the remains of the victims of forced disappearances. It further states that at the present time, the Judge for Preliminary Criminal Proceedings in the city of La Paz is in charge of the case and that he is acting to ensure pursuit of the investigation and the subsequent punishment of the persons responsible for the disappearance of Renato Ticona Estrada. 29. By virtue of the foregoing, the State argues that the petition should be declared inadmissible, since the investigation is ongoing, in guarantee of [the rights enshrined] in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, and therefore domestic remedies have not been exhausted. III. ANALYSIS ON JURISDICTION AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Jurisdiction 30. The petitioner is authorized by Article 44 of the American Convention to lodge petitions with the IACHR. The petition states that the alleged victims are Renato Ticona Estrada, César Ticona Olivares, Honoria Estrada de Ticona, Hugo Ticona Estrada, and Rodo Ticona Estrada and Betzy Ticona Estrada, in respect of whom Bolivia undertook an obligation to respect and guarantee the rights established in the American Convention. As for the State, the Commission notes that Bolivia has been a party to the American Convention since July 19, 1979, the date on which it deposited the relevant instrument of ratification. The Commission therefore has jurisdiction ratione personae to examine the petition. 31. The Commission has jurisdiction ratione loci to consider the petition, since it alleges violations of rights protected by the American Convention that took place on the territory of a State party to that Convention. Moreover, the IACHR has jurisdiction ratione temporis because the obligation to respect and ensure the rights protected by the American Convention was already in force for the State on the date that the events alleged in the petition occurred. 32. The Commission has jurisdiction ratione materiae, since the petition refers to complaints of violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. The Commission takes note of the fact that in the present case, the forced disappearance of a person is alleged. Considering that Bolivia ratified the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons on May 5, 1999, the Commission will decide on the application of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons to this case, in the course of its examination of the merits of the case and depending on its factual determinations. B. Admissibility Requirement 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 33. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention and Article 31 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission establish as a requirement for admissibility of a petition that the remedies available under the domestic law of the State be previously exhausted. 34. In situations such as the case under consideration, which includes allegations of illegal detention, torture, and forced disappearance, the domestic remedies that must be taken into account for the purposes of the admissibility of the petition are related to the investigation and punishment of the perpetrators of these crimes, which under domestic legislation are crimes prosecuted by the courts. In the case in point, the petitioner invoked the exception to exhaustion of domestic remedies set forth in Article 46(2) of the American Convention, in view of the fact that over twenty-two years have elapsed since the forced disappearance of Renato Ticona, the facts have not been clarified, and there is evidence of a lack of access to justice through negligence, omission, and delay tactics on the part of the Judiciary and other government branches. In the view of the petitioner in the case, there was therefore an 6