protected by Articles 5, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, to the detriment of the relatives of Néstor José Uzcátegui, all in relation to the obligations enshrined in Article 1.1 of the Convention. B. Position of the State 31. As indicated in supra paragraphs 3 and 8, at the date this report was approved, the State had not responded to the petition. V. LEGAL ANALYSIS A. Jurisdiction 1. The Commission’s jurisdiction ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione temporis and ratione materiae 32. The petitioners are authorized by Article 44 of the Convention to file complaints on behalf of the alleged victims. In this case, the alleged victims were under the jurisdiction of the Venezuelan State at the time of the alleged incidents. In turn, the State of Venezuela ratified the American Convention on August 9, 1977. Consequently, the Commission has jurisdiction ratione personae to examine the petition. 33. The Commission has jurisdiction ratione loci to hear the petition, in that there are alleged violations of rights protected under the American Convention that would have taken place within the territory of a State Party to that treaty. 34. Furthermore, the Commission has jurisdiction ratione temporis in that the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected under the American Convention were already in effect for the State on the date on which the events alleged in the petition would have occurred. 35. Finally, the Commission has jurisdiction ratione materiae, because the petition claims alleged violations of human rights protected under the American Convention. 2. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 36. Article 46.1.a of the American Convention provides that, for a complaint submitted to the Inter-American Commission to be admissible in conformity with Article 44 of the Convention, the remedies under domestic law must have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. The purpose of this requirement is to enable the national authorities to examine an alleged violation of a protected right and, if appropriate, to settle it before it is reviewed by an international body. 37. The requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies is applicable when in the national system there is recourse effectively available, which is appropriate and effective to remedy the alleged violation. In this respect, Article 46.2 specifies that the requirement is not applicable if the domestic legislation of the state concerned does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right allegedly violated, if the alleged victim did not have access to the remedies under domestic law, or if there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. Under the provisions of Article 31 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, when the petitioner invokes one of these exceptions to the rule, it shall be up to the State to demonstrate that the remedies under domestic law have not been previously exhausted, unless that is clearly evident from the record. 38. According to the principles of international law as reflected in the precedents established by the Inter-American Commission and Court, it may first be noted that the State in question may expressly or tacitly waive the invocation of this rule. 3 Second, in order to be considered timely, 3 IACHR Report N° 69/05, Iván Eladio Torres, Petition 960/03, Admissibility, Argentina, October 13, 2005, para. 42; I/A Court H.R., Ximenes Lopes Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of November 30, 2005. Series C No. 139, para. 8