Commission therefore reminds Bolivia that it is obliged to cooperate with the organs of the inter-American human rights system in the interests of the optimal performance of its duties in protecting human rights. B. Competence of the Commission Ratione Personae, Ratione Materiae, Ratione Temporis, and Ratione Loci 17. First of all, the petitioners are entitled, under Article 44 of the American Convention, to lodge complaints with the IACHR. The petition names, as its alleged victims, individual persons with respect to whom the Bolivian State had assumed the commitment of respecting and ensuring the rights enshrined in the American Convention. With respect to the State, the Commission notes that Bolivia has been a party to the American Convention since July 19, 1979, when it deposited its corresponding instrument of ratification. The Commission therefore has competence ratione personae to examine the complaint. 18. The Commission has competence ratione loci to deal with the petition since it alleges violations of rights protected by the American Convention occurring within the territory of a state party thereto. The Commission has competence ratione temporis since the obligation of respecting and ensuring the rights protected by the American Convention was already in force for the State on the date on which the incidents described in the petition allegedly occurred. Finally, the Commission has competence ratione materiae since the petition describes violations of human rights that are protected by the American Convention. However, the Commission does not have competence with respect to the alleged violations of the International Refugees Convention and of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, as indicated by Article 29 of the American Convention. The Commission will consider both those instruments in its analysis of the State’s international obligations under the American Convention. C. 1. Admissibility Requirements Exhaustion of domestic remedies 19. Article 46(1) of the American Convention rules that for a petition to be admissible, the remedies available under the State’s domestic jurisdiction must first have been exhausted. 20. The Commission’s jurisprudence, and that of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, has repeatedly set out the purpose or ultimate goal of habeas corpus remedies, saying that such remedies are “designed to protect personal freedom or physical integrity against arbitrary detentions by means of a judicial decree ordering the appropriate authorities to bring the detained person before a judge so that the lawfulness of the detention may be determined and, if appropriate, the release of the detainee be ordered.”8 21. The State lodged no preliminary objections alleging the failure to exhaust domestic remedies. Consequently, the Inter-American Commission rules that with 8 Inter-Am.Ct.H.R., Habeas Corpus in Emergency Situations (Articles 27(2) 25(1), and 7(6) of the American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-8/87, January 30, 1987, Series A Nº 8, paragraphs 3335. Inter-Am.Ct.H.R., Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Articles 27(2), 25, and 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987, Series A Nº 9, paragraph 31. Inter-Am.Ct.H.R., Case of Neira Alegría et al., Judgment of January 19, 1995, Series C Nº 20, paragraph 82. Inter-Am.Ct.H.R., Suárez Rosero Case, Judgment of November 12, 1997, Series C No. 35, paragraph 63.