5 IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence of the Commission ratione personæ, ratione loci, ratione temporis and ratione materiæ 24. In principle, petitioners are authorized to lodge petitions with the Commission under Article 44 of the American Convention. The petition indicates that the alleged victims are four individuals in respect of whom the State of Guatemala pledged to respect and guarantee the rights established in the American Convention. With regard to the State, the Commission points out that Guatemala has been a state party to the American Convention since May 25, 1978, the date on which it deposited its instrument of ratification. Moreover, Guatemala has been a party to the Convention of Belém do Pará since April 4, 1995. Consequently, the Commission has personal jurisdiction to examine the petition. It also has territorial jurisdiction to examine the petition, since it contains allegations of the violation of rights protected by the American Convention that took place in Guatemala territory, a state party to that instrument. 25. The Commission has temporal jurisdiction, since the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected in the American Convention and the Convention of Belém do Pará was already in effect for the State on the date that the acts alleged in the petition occurred. Finally, the Commission has subject matter jurisdiction, because the petition refers to possible violations 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 26. Article 46.1 of the American Convention establishes that, in order for a petition lodged with the Inter-American Commission to be admissible pursuant to Article 44 of the Convention, remedies under domestic law must have been pursued and exhausted, in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. The purpose of this requirement is to enable national authorities to take cognizance of an alleged violation of a protected right and, if appropriate, to have an opportunity to settle the case before it is referred to an international jurisdiction. 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. 27. In the present case, the State argues that the remedies under domestic law have not been pursued and exhausted, and that the criminal investigation is still open. Whenever a state alleges that remedies under domestic law have not been exhausted, it has the burden of indicating what remedies should be exhausted and of demonstrating their effectiveness. In that case, it is then the responsibility of the petitioners to demonstrate that such remedies were exhausted, or that one of the exceptions stipulated in Article 46.2 of the American Convention applies. 28. The petitioners indicate that five years have lapsed since the murder of Claudina Isabel Velásquez, and that the case is still in the investigation stage. This, despite the efforts on the part of the family, and especially her father, who became a co-complainant in an effort to move the investigation forward. However, they report that these efforts were not enough to arouse