we do not have an eyewitness of the crime or any other evidence allowing us to prosecute anybody, as has been the case with other murders of women (…)” 8 IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence of the Commission ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis and ratione loci 36. The petitioners are authorized by Article 44 of the American Convention to file complaints before the IACHR. The petition identifies María Isabel Véliz Franco as the alleged victim, an individual with respect to whom Guatemala undertook to respect and guarantee the rights provided for by the American Convention. With respect to the State, Guatemala is a party to the American Convention since May 25, 1978, the day on which it deposited its instrument of ratification. Guatemala is likewise a party to the Convention of Belém do Pará since April 4, 1995. Therefore, the Commission is competent rationae personae to examine the petition. 37. The IACHR is competent ratione loci to hear the petition, because in it violations of rights protected by the American Convention and the Convention of Belém do Pará are alleged to have taken place, within the territory of the State of Guatemala, a party to said treaties. 38. The Commission, in addition, is competent ratione temporis, since the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected by the American Convention and the Convention of Belém do Pará were already in force for the State at the time in which the events alleged in the petition would have occurred. Finally, the Commission is competent ratione materiae, given that the petition complains of the violation of human rights protected by the American Convention and the Convention of Belém do Pará. B. Other requirements for admissibility of the petition 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 39. The American Convention, in its Article 46(1), provides that for a petition to be admissible, it shall be subject to the following requirement: “that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law.” Article 46(2) of the Convention, in turn, establishes three situations in which the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies is not applicable: 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, or c) when there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. These rules refer not only to the formal existence of said remedies, but also to the fact that they must be appropriate and effective. 40. In the instant case, the State alleges that there is an ongoing investigation of the facts and that, although the proceedings carried out to investigate and clarify the facts have not yet yielded conclusive physical and scientific evidence to find the guilty parties, there is no unwarranted delay in the proceedings to clarify the facts. The petitioners, in turn allege that it is impossible to exhaust domestic remedies, and further claim that there has been an unwarranted delay on the part of the State to investigate and clarify the facts “because of a lack of focus in its actions, or because of a lack of action altogether”; hence, the homicide of María Isabel Véliz Franco is still in the investigation phase. They maintain that the State has had conclusive evidence at its disposal to investigate the case; it is a matter that has less do to with the complexity of a case, and more with the “negligence and lack of interest on the part of the authorities responsible for the investigation.” Moreover, the record clearly shows their active participation in the case from the beginning, having, in addition, taken actions and 8 State’s communication dated July 13, 2006. 7