responsibility would derive, as well as their corresponding scope and the legal effects that they could have until now. 43. In view of the situation described above, the Commission considers that the acknowledgment of responsibility of the Argentine State has full legal effects. Notwithstanding this, taking into account the Commission’s role of guarantor of the inter-American public order, the aspects that continue to be controversial, and the need to determine the scope of the international responsibility of the Argentine State in order to provide the pertinent recommendations, the Commission concludes that it is necessary to comprehensively analyze the facts and all the substantive elements of this matter. V. COMPETENCE ANALYSIS AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence, duplication of procedures, and international res judicata Competence Ratione personae: Competence Ratione loci: Competence Ratione temporis: Yes Yes Yes Yes, American Convention on Human Rights (ratification instrument deposited on September 5, 1984) Competence Ratione materiae: Duplication of procedures and International res judicata: No B. Exhaustion of domestic remedies and timeliness of the petition 44. According to the constant criterion of the IACHR, “(…) the analysis of the requirements set forth in Articles 46 and 47 of the Convention must be made in light of the situation in force at the time of the decision on admissibility or inadmissibility of the claim”5. 45. In the present case, the petitioners argued that the case complies with the exception to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, both because the remedies have been ineffective in finding the truth of the facts, and because of the excessive and unjustified delay of justice, due to the intention of the State to avoid a true investigation. It indicated that it took 25 years for the oral trial of the only person accused of the attack to begin and 15 years for the officials involved in the diversion and cover-up of the investigation of the attack to be sentenced, however, it has not been possible to the date to determine the truth of what happened, nor to punish those responsible. 46. Regarding the position of the Argentine State, the Commission observes that in its first submissions it alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies; However, in its subsequent communications it stated that, since the Argentine State assumed international responsibility through Decree 812/2005, it would be unnecessary to make observations regarding the merits of the matter. The State did not submit observations or arguments again regarding the admissibility of the case. 47. Taking into account that almost 26 years have passed since the beginning of the criminal proceeding without resolution, which should be the ideal way to clarify the facts and responsibilities through a diligent and ex officio investigation, the Commission considers that the exception provided for in Article 46.2 c) of the American Convention is applicable. IACHR, Report No. 15/15, Admissibility. Petition 374-05. Workers of the Union of Workers of the National Federation of Coffee Growers of Colombia. Colombia. March 24, 2015, para. 39. Also see: I/A Court H.R., Case of Wong Ho Wing v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2015. Series C No. 297, para. 25. 5 9