A. Jurisdiction ratione materiae, ratione personae, ratione temporis and ratione loci of the Commission 33. In accordance with Article 44 of the American Convention and Article 23 of the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR, the petitioner has locus standi to submit petitions before the Inter-American Commission. As for the State, Colombia is a party to the American Convention. The alleged victim is a natural person whose rights enshrined in the American Convention the State has committed itself to guaranteeing. Therefore the Commission has jurisdiction ratione personae to examine the petition. 34. Colombia ratified the American Convention on July 31, 1973, the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture on December 2, 1998, and the Convention of Belém do Pará on October 3, 1993; in other words, the treaties invoked were in force for the State when the violations described in the petition were allegedly committed. Consequently, the Inter-American Commission has jurisdiction ratione materiae and ratione temporis to hear this matter. 35. Finally, the Inter-American Commission has jurisdiction ratione loci to hear the petition because it alleges violations of the rights protected in the aforementioned treaties that took place in Colombia’s territory. B. Requirements for Admissibility of the Petition 1. Exhaustion of remedies under domestic law 36. In order for a claim to be admitted for the alleged violation of the provisions of the American Convention, it must meet the requirements established in Article 46(1) of that international instrument. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention holds that in order for a complaint submitted before the Inter-American Commission under Article 44 of the Convention to be admissible, all domestic remedies must first be pursued and exhausted, in keeping with generally accepted principles of international law. The purpose of this requirement is to allow domestic authorities to hear cases of alleged violations of protected rights and, where appropriate, have the opportunity to resolve them before they are brought before an international authority. 37. For its part, Article 46(2) of the Convention stipulates that the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies is not applicable when a) the domestic legislation of the State concerned does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right or rights that have allegedly been violated; b) the party alleging violation of his rights has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law or has been prevented from exhausting them; or c) there has been an unjustified delay in the ruling on the aforementioned remedies. The Commission has reiterated that in situations in which the domestic development of the facts initially presented represent a change in compliance or non-compliance with admissibility requirements, the case should be analyzed based on its status at the moment it was granted admissibility. 1 According to the Inter-American Court, whenever a State alleges a lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies by the petitioners, it has the burden of demonstrating that the remedies that have not been exhausted are "adequate" for rectifying the violation alleged - namely, that the function of these remedies within the domestic legal system is sufficient for protecting the juridical situation infringed upon. 2 38. The invocation of exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies set forth in Article 46(2) of the Convention is closely linked to the determination of possible violations of certain rights set forth in the Convention, such as the guarantee of access to justice. However, Article 46(2), by its nature and purpose, is a provision whose content is autonomous vis-a-vis the substantive provisions of the Convention. Therefore, the determination of whether exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies are applicable to the 1 IACHR. Report 2/08, Petition 506-05, José Rodríguez Dañín (Bolivia), March 6, 2008, para. 56. Citing. IACHR, Report No. 20/05, Petition 714-00, Rafael Correa Díaz (Peru), February 25, 2005, para. 32; IACHR Report No. 25/04 Case 12,361, Ana Victoria Sánchez Villalobos et al. (Costa Rica), March 11, 2004, para. 45; IACHR, Report No. 52/00. Cases 11,830 and 12,038, Dismissed Employees of the Congress of the Republic (Peru), June 29, 1992, para. 21. 2 Inter-American Court. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 64.