guidance at the discretion of the authority. However, the State argues that such testimony pointing in a particular direction is by no means compelling. 43. The State submits that the amparo proceeding judge examined all of the different statements, testimonies and expert opinions appearing in the case investigation file, specifically citing the relevant portions that address the reasons for disagreement put forth by the appellant. It notes that the judge fulfilled his duty by citing both the arguments of fact and of law on which the investigating authority based its decision. 44. It argues that the petition must be found inadmissible because the petitioner did not exhaust the remedies available to him in the domestic legal system. It notes that the motion for review of the denial of the amparo was available to the petitioners, and that it is a domestic remedy that is suitable and effective to keep the investigation open. However, the petitioners inexplicably did not challenge the decision, which culminated with the amparo decision and that is why this latest decision became res judicata after a period of ten days elapsed from the date that the family members were notified of the decision The State further alleges that the petition must be found inadmissible as well because the IACHR may not supersede the interpretations and rulings of domestic courts with its own. The State raises the point that an unfavorable ruling is insufficient to find a petition admissible since the decision was not arbitrary nor did it tend to establish violations of the rights set forth in the American Convention. 45. The State maintains that over the course of the investigation the conduct of the prosecutorial bodies and the judicial apparatus adhered to the standards set by the Commission and has even allowed for the scrutiny of domestic proceedings by international experts with regard to all evidence of the preliminary investigation. IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence of the Inter-American Commission ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione temporis and ratione materiae 46. The petitioners are entitled, in principle, under Article 44 of the American Convention to lodge petitions before the Commission. The petition identifies as the alleged victims individuals, for whom the Mexican State undertook to respect and ensure the rights enshrined in the American Convention. As for the State, the Commission notes that Mexico has been a State Party to the American Convention since March 24, 1981, when it deposited the respective instrument of ratification. Likewise, Mexico has been a party to the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture since June 22, 1987. Therefore, the Commission is competent ratione personae to examine the petition. The Commission is also competent ratione loci to hear the petition, inasmuch as violations of rights protected in the American Convention are alleged therein to have taken place within the territory of Mexico, a State Party to these treaties. 47. The Commission is competent ratione temporis because the obligation to respect and ensure the rights protected in the American Convention was already in effect on the State at the time when the facts alleged in the petition took place. Lastly, the Commission is competent ratione materiae being that the petition charges potential violations of human rights protected under the American Convention and the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. A. Other Admissibility Requirements 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 48. In order for the IACHR to admit a petition, the requirement of prior exhaustion of available domestic remedies, as prescribed in Article 46.1.a of the American Convention, must be met in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. Article 46.2 of the American Convention provides that the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies requirement 9