that the petition names as alleged victims Arley José Escher, Celso Anghinoni, and Avanilson Alves Araujo among others in the organizations of ADECON and COANAL, and they are persons whose rights under the Convention Brazil is committed to respect and protect. Therefore, the Commission has competence ratione personae to examine the petition. 21. The petition alleges violations of rights protected in the American Convention. Therefore, the Commission has competence ratione materiae to examine the petition. 22. The Commission equally has competence ratione temporis because the events alleged in the petition took place when the obligation to respect and protect the rights enshrined in the Convention was already in force for the State, which ratified the American Convention on September 25, 1992. 23. Finally, the Commission has competence ratione loci to examine this petition because it alleges violations of rights protected by the American Convention that took place within territory belonging to the Brazilian State. B. Other requirements for admissibility 1. Exhaustion of remedies under domestic law 24. Article 46.1 of the American Convention states that admission of a petition is subject to the requirement that it has previously exhausted the remedies available under the domestic law of the state. The petitioners claim that they initiated two types of remedy for these events. The first, a mandado de segurança, to bring the tapping to an immediate halt. The second, a criminal charge to determine the responsibility of the state authorities who participated in the events. Subsequently, the latter divided into two aims: a) the investigation of the judge who had ordered a restriction on a right without stating the reasons for her decision; and b) the investigation of the responsibility of the Security Secretary for divulging the content of the recordings. The petitioners allege that the first remedy was exhausted by the decision on June 19, 2000, in which it was stated that the violation had existed but because the phone tapping was no longer taking place, it could not be resolved. The petitioners alleged that the criminal charge, after one year and four months, remained at the instruction stage, thus qualifying as an exception to its exhaustion due to the unwarranted delay in its proceedings, in accordance with the terms of Article 46.2.b of the Convention. 25. The State, for its part, alleged that the decision dated June 19, 2000, in the mandado de segurança proceedings was susceptible to appeal by means of a “constitutional appeal” before the Supreme Federal Court. However, in the opinion of the State, the petitioners have not attempted to pursue that remedy and therefore the petition should be declared inadmissible. With regard to the criminal proceedings, the State observed that during August 2000, the Public Attorney’s office found that for lack of evidence of malicious conduct, the case was dismissed against the judge who had issued the order to tap and monitor the telephone communications. Subsequently, the State indicated that on October 6, 2000, a court sentenced the Public Security Secretary who was involved in the events, to two years and four months imprisonment. This sentence was appealed and on October 14, 2004, the Second Criminal Chamber of the Paraná Court revoked the finding, and acquitted the appellant on the grounds that his conduct had been atypical. 26. The Commission reasserts that the requirement of prior exhaustion of remedies available under domestic law was established in order to ensure that the State would be able to resolve disputes within its own legal framework. In this way, any State that invokes an exception on the grounds that remedies have not been exhausted under domestic law carries the burden of proving that remedies remain under domestic law and that such remedies are adequate and effective. 3 27. In this context it is appropriate to clarify the remedies available under domestic law that should be exhausted in each particular case. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has 3 IACHR, Report N° 60/03 (Admissibility), petition 12,108 Marcel Claude Reyes et al. vs. Chile, October 10, 2003, paragraph 51, IACHR, Annual Report 2000, Report No. 02/01, Case 11,280, Juan Carlos Bayarri, Argentina, January 19, 2001, paragraph 30. 4