rights established in the Convention was in force for the Brazilian State, which ratified the Convention on September 25, 1992. 20. The Commission has competence ratione loci (by reason of the place involved) because the alleged facts occurred in the city of Rio de Janeiro, that is, within territory subject to the jurisdiction of the Brazilian State. B. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 21. Pursuant to Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention, one the Commission's admissibility requirements is that domestic remedies must have been exhausted, in accordance with principles of international law. However, Article 46(2) of the Convention establishes that the aforementioned provision does not apply in the following cases: 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 unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. 22. In this case, according to information supplied by the petitioners and confirmed by the Brazilian State, two police inquiries were initiated to determine the events that took place in Nova Brasília favela: (a) Inquiry N�� 184/94, begun on October 18, 1994, conducted by the Narcotics Enforcement Commission; and (b) Inquiry Nº 52/94, conducted by the Special Commission against Torture and Abuse of Authority. The opening date of this inquiry is not available. 23. According to the information available, the Commission notes that Brazilian law provides for a 30-day period for conclusion of police inquiries, which may be extended for an additional thirty days with judicial authorization. However, according to the information available in the file, even now the inquiries have not been completed, despite the passage of six years. 24. The State did not expressly dispute whether the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies had been met, confining itself to reporting that two police inquiries had been initiated to establish the alleged violations taking place in the police raid of Nova Brasília favela, and that the investigations process is being supervised by the Office of the Public Prosecutor. The Commission indicates that the State should expressly and duly cite the provisions regarding failure to exhaust domestic remedies so that it may oppose the petition's admissibility. In this case, the State did not avail itself of that prerogative, which amounts to its tacit waiver.1 25. In view of the foregoing, the Commission states that, with six years having elapsed since the initiation of the investigations in 1994, without the police inquiries having been concluded, there has been an unwarranted delay as defined in Article 46(2) (c) of the Convention. Delay in the conclusion of these investigations implies that criminal proceedings cannot be brought, thereby making it impossible for the perpetrators to be punished. For the foregoing reasons, the Commission considers that the requirement regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies is met. C. Period for lodging the petition 26. In view of the unwarranted delay under domestic remedies and the corresponding application of Article 46(2)(c) of the Convention and Article 37(2)(c) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, the Commission decides that, pursuant to Article 46(2) of the Convention, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987, Series C, No. 1, para. 88, and Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Loayza Tamayo, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of January 31, 1996, Series C, Nº 25, para. 40. 1 4