mechanisms in the penal and constitutional jurisdiction that were placed at the disposal of the petitioners; however, since these were not exhausted, the Inter-American Commission should declare the case inadmissible. IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. The Inter-American Commission’s competence ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis, and ratione loci 27. The petitioners are eligible under Article 44 of the American Convention to submit a petition to the Commission. The petition under study indicates that the alleged victim was under the jurisdiction of the Salvadoran State at the time of the alleged facts. As regards the State, the Commission notes that El Salvador is a State party to the American Convention, having duly deposited its instrument of ratification on June 23, 1978. The Commission therefore has ratione personae competence to examine the petition. 28. The Commission also has ratione materia competence because the petitioners allege violations of rights protected in the framework of the American Convention. The State holds that applicable law during the domestic armed conflict should be international humanitarian law. In this regard, the Commission considers that the circumstance that some of the alleged facts occurred in the context of an armed conflict does not prevent the Commission from having competence to decide on them. Article 27 of the Convention does permit the suspension of the State’s international obligations concerning some rights in the context of armed conflicts, but in no way does it suspend the force of the whole Convention or strip this Commission of its authority. Nevertheless, in the merits phase, the IACHR must analyze the State’s obligations arising from the Convention, in the light of rules of international humanitarian law that will be used as part of the interpretation insofar as they have the status of lex specialis. 29. The Commission has ratione temporis competence to examine the case. The petition is based on allegations of facts that occurred starting on December 12, 1981, the date on which the disappearance of Emelinda Lorena Hernández was said to have begun. The alleged facts thus occurred after the entry into force of the obligations of the State as a party to the American Convention. Furthermore, inasmuch as the petition alleges violations of rights protected in the framework of the American Convention that took place in the territory of a State party, the Commission concludes that it has ratione loci competence to consider it. B. Other requirements for admissibility of the petition 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 30. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention stipulates that admission of a petition requires “that remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law.” The same Convention provides that this provision shall not apply when domestic remedies are not available for reasons of fact or law. Specifically Article 46(2) establishes exceptions to the general principle of exhaustion of domestic remedies when the domestic legislation of the State does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right or rights that have allegedly been violated; when the alleged victim has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law; or when there has been an unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment. 31. The State argues that the instant case is inadmissible because domestic remedies in El Salvador have not been exhausted. It notes in this regard the existence of a proceeding open in the Attorney General’s Office, in the investigative phase, so a domestic resolution is said to be pending. In addition, it holds that available remedies were not exhausted in a timely manner, such as those for habeas corpus, the complaints to the International Committee of 5