respect of whom the Colombian State undertook to respect and ensure the rights enshrined in the American Convention. As regards the State, the Commission notes that Colombia has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 31, 1973, when it deposited its instrument of ratification. Therefore, the Commission is competent ratione personae to examine the petition. 26. The Commission is competent ratione loci to take cognizance of the petition, insofar as it alleges violations of rights protected in the American Convention that are said to have taken place in the territory of a State party to that treaty. The IACHR is competent ratione temporis insofar as the obligation to respect and ensure the rights protected in the American Convention had already entered into force for the State as of the date that the facts alleged in the petition are said to have occurred. Finally, the Commission is competent ratione materiae, because the petition alleges violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. B. Admissibility Requirements 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies and time period for lodging a petition 27. The State argues that it has carried out its obligation to administer justice, leading to two convictions in relation to the assassination of Jesús María Valle. It further argues that the petitioners’ claim breaches the requirement set forth at Article 46(1) of the American Convention on the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies. Specifically, it considers that the petitioners must exhaust the contentious-administrative jurisdiction and await the resolution of the criminal proceeding still pending. The petitioners, for their part, allege that the proceeding that took place and concluded in relation to three civilians has not clarified the assassination of Jesús María Valle, and that there has been unwarranted delay in the conclusion of the criminal investigation, and that they are not under an obligation to exhaust the contentiousadministrative jurisdiction before recurring to the Commission. 28. Second, a clarification is in order as to which domestic remedies must be exhausted in the instant case. The Inter-American Court has indicated that only those remedies adequate for making reparations for the violations allegedly committed need be exhausted. Adequate remedies are those: which are suitable to address an infringement of a legal right. A number of remedies exist in the legal system of every country, but not all are applicable in every circumstance. If a remedy is not adequate in a specific case, it obviously need not be exhausted. A norm is meant to have an effect and should not be interpreted in such a way as to negate its effect or lead to a result that is manifestly absurd or unreasonable.7 The case-law of the Commission recognizes that whenever a crime is committed that can be prosecuted sua sponte, the State is under the obligation to promote and give impetus to the criminal proceedings to their ultimate consequences8 and that, in those cases, it is the adequate way to clarify the facts, prosecute the persons responsible, and establish the corresponding criminal sanctions, in addition to making possible other forms of reparation, such as pecuniary compensation. The Commission considers that the facts alleged by the petitioners in the instant case involve violations of fundamental rights, which, in the domestic legislation, makes them crimes that can be prosecuted sua sponte by the State, and therefore, it is this proceeding, at the impetus of the State itself, that should be considered for the purpose of determining the admissibility of the claim. 29. The State considers that the contentious-administrative remedy available under the domestic legislation must also be exhausted in order to trigger the jurisdiction of the Commission. Nonetheless, the IACHR has established in similar cases that the contentiousadministrative jurisdiction is exclusively a mechanism for supervising the administrative activity of the State aimed at securing compensation for damages caused by abuse of 7 8 I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Judgment of July 29, 1988, para. 64. Report No. 52/97, Case 11,218, Arges Sequeira Mangas, Annual Report of the IACHR 1997, paras. 96 and 97. See also Report No. 55/97, para. 392. Report 57/00 La Granja, Ituango, Annual Report of the IACHR 2000, para. 40. 5