Metropolitan Area of Caracas, which was issued by that court, and by virtue of which the arrest was carried out. It therefore argues that Mr. Díaz Peña was lawfully detained. 39. The State indicates that it rejects all that is set forth in the petition submitted to the Commission, that the instant case does not meet the admissibility requirements, since the proceeding against Mr. Díaz Peña is before the competent entities, and that in the course of the proceeding his human rights have been guaranteed at all times. Finally, it argues that the petitioner has not exhausted domestic remedies in keeping with Article 31 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, and that therefore the claim of the alleged violation of the American Convention is inadmissible. IV. ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence 1. Competence of the Commission temporis, and ratione materiae ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione 40. The petitioners are authorized by Article 44 of the Convention to submit complaints on behalf of the alleged victims. The Venezuelan State ratified the American Convention on August 9, 1977. Accordingly, the Commission is competent ratione personae to examine the petition. In addition, the Commission is competent ratione temporis insofar as the American Convention was already in force for the State as of the date on which the facts alleged in the petition are said to have occurred. 41. The Commission is competent ratione loci insofar as the violations alleged are said to have occurred in the territory of a state party to that treaty. Finally, the Commission is competent ratione materiae, because the petition alleged violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. B. Admissibility Requirements 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 42. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention requires the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies, in keeping with generally recognized principles of international law, as a requirement for admitting claims alleging violations of the rights protected. The purpose of this requirement is to enable the national authorities to take cognizance of the alleged violation of a right protected and, if appropriate, to resolve it before it is heard by an international body. 43. The Commission observes that this case refers to alleged violations of the American Convention as a result of the alleged prolonged preventive detention to which Raúl José Díaz Peña was subjected, the alleged irregularities in the criminal proceeding against him, as well as the deterioration of his health, allegedly because of the conditions of detention and negligence in the supply of adequate and timely medical care. 44. The State alleges failure to exhaust domestic remedies. Specifically, the State indicated that the petition refers to a proceeding pending before the competent entities, in the context of which existing remedies have not been pursued. 45. The Commission has stated earlier that to comply with the prior exhaustion requirement, petitioners have to exhaust suitable remedies, i.e. remedies that are available and effective for remedying the situation alleged. In the instant case, as regards the petitioner’s allegations regarding the unlawful deprivation of liberty and prolonged preventive detention of Mr. Díaz Peña and the alleged violation of his right to the presumption of innocence, it appears from the record that on March 24, 2006, two years after the alleged victim’s detention, a motion for review of the detention measure was filed as per Article 244 of the COPP, and that on March 29, 2006, the 23rd Court denied the review of the deprivation of liberty. Subsequently, a motion appealing that decision was filed, which was found inadmissible on June 19, 2006, by 12