32. Finally, the Commission has ratione materiae competence because the petition alleges violations of human rights protected by the American Convention and because they could also constitute violations of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons (IACFDP), whose instrument of ratification was deposited by Ecuador on July 27, 2006. B. Admissibility requirements 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 33. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention provides that admission of petitions lodged with the Inter-American Commission in keeping with Article 44 of the Convention shall be subject to the requirement that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. This rule is designed to allow national authorities to examine alleged violations of protected rights and, as appropriate, to resolve them before they are taken up in an international proceeding. Article 46.2 of the Convention in turn establishes three circumstances in which the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies does not apply: a) when 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) when the party alleging violation of his rights has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law, or has been prevented from exhausting them; and c) when there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforesaid remedies. These exceptions do not refer only to the formal existence of such remedies, but also to the fact that they are adequate and effective. 34. The State argued failure to exhaust domestic remedies and indicated that the appropriate remedy would have been to bring a habeas corpus action, which was provided for in the Political Constitution of Ecuador in force at the time. For their part, the petitioners argued that it had been impossible to pursue domestic remedies because the alleged detention and disappearance of Mr. Vásquez purportedly took place during an international armed conflict, during which Ecuador was under a constitutional state of emergency, when the National Security law was in effect, and the presentation of habeas corpus and similar actions was in practice suspended. They added that hostilities toward Peruvian citizens were evident at the time, which is why they had not been able to travel from Peru to Ecuador. Without prejudice thereto, they reported on other steps they had taken to ascertain the whereabouts of Mr. Vásquez. 35. As the Commission has pointed out, to analyze compliance with the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies, the Commission must determine the appropriate remedy to exhaust under the circumstances, meaning the remedy best suited to resolving the legal infringement.10 36. With respect to the State's argument that the petitioners should have brought a habeas corpus action, the IACHR considers that although, in principle, it might have been the appropriate remedy in the case of an alleged arbitrary detention, two obstacles are to be noted: The first is a matter of fact: at the time of the alleged detention of Mr. Vásquez Durand, as pointed out in greater detail below, Ecuador and Peru were engaged in an armed conflict. Mr. Vásquez had purportedly been detained in Ecuador and both his family members and the petitioners were living in Peru. Accordingly, the Commission deems it reasonable for the petitioners to argue that they were prevented from resorting to domestic remedies, such a habeas corpus action. 37. The second obstacle has to do with domestic legal provisions. The habeas corpus action applicable at the time of the alleged arbitrary detention of Mr. Jorge Vásquez Durand -- provided for in Article 19 (16)(j) of the Political Constitution at that time --11 required that the action be filed with the Mayor or 10 IACHR. Report No. 23/07. Petition 435-06. Admissibility. Eduardo José Landaeta Mejías et al. Venezuela. March 9, 2007, paragraph 43. IACHR. Report No. 156/10. Petition 1368-04. Admissibility. Daniel Gerardo Gómez, Aida Marcela Garita et al. Costa Rica. November 1, 2010, paragraph 53. 11 Article 19 of the Political Constitution of Ecuador of 1979 establishes: "Everyone is entitled to the following guarantees: [...] No. 16: personal liberty and security. [...] Consequently: [...]j) Anyone who believes that he has been illegally deprived of his liberty may [continues …] 6