19. The State alleges that the existence of a ruling unfavorable to the interests of the alleged victims does not constitute a violation of the rights contained in the American Convention, that the remedies pursued in the domestic jurisdiction were adequate, effective, and appropriate, and that the decisions were properly supported and cannot be declared to have been arbitrary. In view of the above, the State asserts that the alleged facts have been the subject of domestic decisions in three different and autonomous jurisdictions, in accordance with due process, and that the decisions were not appealed; thus, the Commission cannot act as a court of fourth instance. IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence ratione materiae, ratione personae, ratione temporis and ratione loci of the Commission 20. The petitioners are authorized by Article 44 of the American Convention to submit petitions to the Commission. The petition indicates as victims individuals with respect to whom the Colombian State has committed to respect and guarantee the rights enshrined in the American Convention. With respect to the State, the Commission indicates that Colombia has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 31, 1977, the date on which it deposited its ratifying instrument. Therefore, the Commission is competent ratio personae to examine the petition. In addition, the Commission is competent ratione loci to hear the petition in that it alleges violations of rights protect in the American Convention that would have occurred within the territory of Colombia, a State Party to that convention. 21. The Commission is competent ratione temporis in that the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected in the American Convention were already in effect for the State on the date the events alleged in the petition would have occurred. Finally, the Commission is competent ratione materiae because the petition alleges possible violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. B. Admissibility requirements 1. Exhaustion of domestic resources 22. In order for a complaint regarding the alleged violation of the provisions of the American Convention to be admitted, it must meet the requirements established in Article 46.1 of that international instrument. Article 46.1.a) of the Convention provides that in order to determine the admissibility of a petition or communication submitted to the IACHR in accordance with Articles 44 or 45 of the Convention, the domestic remedies must have been pursued and exhausted, in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. 23. Article 46.2 of the Convention provides that the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies requirement is not applicable when (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. 24. The Commission must first clarify which domestic remedies should be exhausted in the instant case. The Commission and the Inter-American Court have indicated that only remedies suitable for resolving the violations allegedly committed must be exhausted. The suitability of remedies means that The function of these resources within the internal legal system is appropriate to protect the legal situation infringed upon. In all internal legal systems, there are multiple resources, but not all of them are applicable in every circumstance. If, in a specific case, the resource is not adequate, it is obvious that it need not be exhausted. This is indicated in the principle that the norm is designed to 4