78. In the opinion of the State, the petitioners’ argument that just because some of the domestic remedies proved unsuccessful all domestic remedies must be considered exhausted is inadmissible. The State contends that the petitioners argue for the admissibility of the petition and then claim the exception to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies when the latter is the consequence of the former. Specifically, the State considers that the petitioners present the facts relating to the criminal proceedings against Allan Brewer Carias falsely and with malice in order that “there be a declaration […] that the exemption to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies applies because they are ineffective and for the lack of access to justice, for the absence of due process of law and for unwarranted delay, all of this within the framework of a pattern of use of criminal law against those who present themselves as distinguished personalities in the legal world and in the state of law" (see supra III A). 79. Based on the foregoing, the State requests that the Commission declare the petition inadmissible. IV. ANALISIS A. Competence of the Commission ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione temporis, and ratione materiae 80. The petitioners are authorized by Article 44 of the Convention to file complaints on behalf of the alleged victims. For its part, the Venezuelan State ratified the American Convention on August 9, 1977; accordingly, the Commission is competent ratione personae to examine the petition. The Commission is also competent ratione temporis insofar as the American Convention was already in force for the State on the date the facts alleged in the petition are said to have occurred. 81. The Commission is competent ratione loci, as the violations alleged are said to have taken place within the territory of a state party to that the Convention. Finally, the Commission is competent ratione materiae, because the petition alleges violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. B. Admissibility requirements 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 82. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention requires the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies in the domestic jurisdiction in keeping with generally recognized principles of international law as a requirement for the admission of claims regarding alleged violations of the American Convention. Article 46(2) of the Convention provides that the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies does not apply 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. 83. In accordance with the burden of proof applicable to this matter, a State that alleges nonexhaustion of domestic remedies must point out the domestic remedies to be exhausted and provide proof of their effectiveness.59 IACHR Rules of Procedure, Article 31.3. See IACHR, Report No. 32/05, petition 642/03, Admissibility, Luis Rolando Cuscul Pivaral, et al, affected by HIV/AIDS, Guatemala, March 7, 2005, paras. 33-35; IA-Court, Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community. Preliminary Objections, para. 53; Case Durand and Ugarte. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of May 28, 1999. Series C No. 50, para. 33; and Case Cantoral Benavides. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 3, 1998. Series C No. 40, para. 31. 59 18