communities concerned in order to address issues of development and natural resources on the lands they currently occupy. 24. As to admissibility requirements, the State contends that the petitioners have not exhausted the legal and administrative remedies provided by domestic law, which include an action for unconstitutionality, the contentious-administrative venue, actions and appeals that all instances of the administrative and judicial jurisdiction guarantee as part of due process, an amparo [constitutional relief] action, and the Ombudsman. At the same time, the State also mentions that it has addressed the complaints of the petitioners regarding the presence of colonists and that it opened an investigation into colonist activities that have caused environmental damage, which led to the arrest of a number of colonists on March 2007. 25. The State, therefore, moves that the petition be declared inadmissible on the grounds that it has not infringed the human rights of the alleged victims, since it has dealt with the complaints of violations lodged by the petitioners, and, moreover, because the petitioners have not exhausted the remedies under Panamanian domestic law. IV. ANALYSIS A. Competence of the Commission ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione temporis y ratione materiae 26. The petitioners, in principle, have standing under Article 44 of the American Convention to lodge petitions with the IACHR. The petition names as alleged victims the indigenous Kuna of Madungandí and Emberá of Bayano peoples and their members,11 on whose behalf the State undertook to respect and guarantee the rights enshrined in the American Convention. As regards the State, the Commission notes that Panama has been a party to the American Convention since May 8, 1978, when it deposited its instrument of ratification. Thus, the Commission has ratione personae competence to examine the petition. 27. The Commission is competent ratione loci to examine the petition because it alleges violations of rights protected in the American Convention that are purported to have occurred within the jurisdiction of a State party. 28. The petitioners allege that the State violated rights enshrined in the American Declaration and the American Convention. In that regard, taking into consideration that the Court and the Commission have found that the American Declaration is a source of international obligations for OAS member States12, the Commission is competent ratione temporis to examine the complaint inasmuch the obligation to observe and ensure the rights protected, initially under the American Declaration and subsequently under the American Convention, was already binding upon Panama at the time the events described in the petition are alleged to have occurred. Part of the alleged events occurred before August 5, 1978, when Panama ratified the American Convention, thus allowing the Commission to simultaneously apply both the American Declaration and American Convention. Finally, the Commission has ratione materiae competence because the petition alleges violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. The indigenous Kuna of Madungandí and Emberá of Bayano peoples constitute organized communities situated in specific geographical locations, whose members can be individually identified. According to the petitioners, at the time the dam was built, the Kuna population in the Bayano region numbered 3,000 persons while the Emberá of Bayano comprised 400 persons. In this respect, see I/A Court H.R., Matter of the Communities of Jiguamiandó and Curbaradó. Provisional Measures. Order of the Court of March 6, 2003, preamble para. 9; Matter of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó. Provisional Measures. Order of the Court of June 18, 2002, preamble para. 8; Matter of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó. Provisional Measures. Order of the Court of November 24, 2000, preamble par.7; The Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community Case. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 149; Matter of Sarayaku Indigenous People. Provisional Measures. Order of the Court of July 6, 2004, para. 9. 12 I/A Court H.R., Interpretation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man within the Framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-10/89 of July 14,1989.Series A No. 10, paras. 35-45; IACHR, James Terry Roach and Jay Pinkerton (United States), Case 9647, Res. 3/87, September 22, 1987, 1986-1987 Annual Report, paras. 46-49, Rafael Ferrer-Mazorra et al. (United States), Report No. 51/01, Case 9903, April 4, 2001. See also Statute of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Art. 20. 11 5