18. The Commission has competence to deal with the present case. First, concerning its competence ratione materiae, the petitioners are alleging violation of rights protected under various international instruments. Specifically, they are alleging violation of Articles I, XXV and XXVI of the American Declaration. Panama is a State Party to the OAS Charter; under Article 20 of the Commission's Statute, the IACHR has the authority to examine communications alleging violations of these Articles of the American Declaration. The Commission is likewise competent to take cognizance of the petitioners' allegations regarding Articles 1, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, Articles 1, 2, 6 and 8 of the Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, and Articles II and III of the Convention on Forced Disappearance, given that Panama is a State party to all those conventions. Second, the Commission has competence ratione loci inasmuch as the alleged violations of the rights protected under those conventions are said to have occurred within the territory of a State party to those conventions. 19. Third, concerning the Commission's competence ratione personae, the petitioners are entitled to lodge complaints with the IACHR under Article 44 of the American Convention, Article XIII of the Convention on Forced Disappearance, and Article 16 of the Convention against Torture. Furthermore, the Commission's Statute and Rules of Procedure also entitle the petitioners to file complaints alleging violations of the American Declaration. The victims alleged in the petition are natural persons whose Convention-recognized rights and freedoms Panama undertook to respect and ensure. Therefore, the Commission has competence ratione personae by an active and passive authority under those inter-American conventions to examine the petition. 20. Finally, the Commission has competence ratione temporis to deal with the petition, which concerns a continuous situation that has gone on for over thirty years. That situation began when Mr. Heliodoro Portugal was forcibly disappeared on May 14, 1970. His next of kin were prevented from exhausting the proper local remedies until the advent of democratic government in Panama in late 1989. This situation continues, inasmuch as the complaint lodged in 1990 has not been effective in getting those responsible for the disappearance punished and no definitive court ruling has been delivered regarding the whereabouts of his remains. The Commission has competence ratione temporis to address the violations of human rights alleged by the petitioners with respect to the American Declaration, 15 the American Convention,16 and the Convention on Forced Disappearance. 17 Regarding the Convention against Torture, the IACHR considers that it only has competence to address the alleged violations against Heliodoro Portugal’s next of kin from the time that treaty was signed and ratified by Panama.18 B. Other admissibility requirements 1. Exhaustion domestic remedies 21. Under Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention, admission of a petition requires "that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law." Article 46(2)(c) provides that the rule requiring exhaustion of local remedies will not be applicable when "there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies." The Commission's practice has been to consider, up front and separate from the merits of the case, whether the grounds for any exception are present. Concerning the distribution of the burden of proof to determine whether this requirement has been met, the Commission reiterates that when the State alleges that there are remedies that remain to be exhausted, it must show what those remedies are and that they are effective. If the State making that claim proves that there are internal remedies that should have been used, it is up to the petitioners to show that those remedies were exhausted or that one of the exceptions allowed under Article 46(2) of the Convention applies. The Commission will now proceed to examine whether Article 46(1)(a) has been fulfilled or whether the exceptions provided for under Article 46(2) of the Convention apply. 15 Panama was already a party to the OAS Charter and bound by it to respect the rights guaranteed under the American Declaration. 16 Panama signed the American Convention on November 22, 1969 and ratified it on June 22, 1978. 17 Panama signed that Convention on September 14, 1994 and ratified it on February 28, 1996. 18 That Convention was signed by Panama on February 10, 1986 and the instrument of ratification was deposited on August 28, 1991. 5