been living under the threat of being destructured since 1980 when state decree No. 7.820 was signed declaring the CLA area expropriated for public use. 44. The Commission is competent rationae materiae because the complaint alleges violation of human rights protected by the American Convention in its Articles 1.1, 8, 17, 21, 22, 25 and 26. The Commission is competent rationae loci because the facts allegedly occurred within the territory of the Federative Republic of Brazil, which ratified the American Convention. 45. The facts herein described began in 1980,[17] 17 by which time the Brazilian State had not yet ratified the American Convention. However, all member States of the Organization of American States are subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction. Under Article 20 of the Commission’s Statute, the Commission is to examine communications alleging violations of the American Declaration. The Commission therefore has jurisdiction rationae temporis to determine whether, during the period prior to September 25, 1992, the date on which Brazil ratified the Convention, there was a violation of Articles VI, VIII, XII, XIII, XIV, XVIII, XXII and XXIII of the American Declaration. 46. The Commission is also competent rationae temporis with respect to any violations alleged to have occurred subsequent to September 25, 1992, because the Brazilian State’s obligation to respect and ensure the rights protected under the Convention was in effect as of that date. V. ADMISSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS A. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 47. Under Article 46.1 of the American Convention, in order for the Commission to admit a petition the remedies under domestic law must have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. Subparagraph 2 of that same Article, however, stipulates that the provisions under Article 46.1 shall not apply 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, or when the party alleging violation of his or her rights has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law, or when there has been an unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment on those remedies. 48. The rule requiring exhaustion of domestic remedies affords the State the opportunity to have its own jurisdictional bodies prosecute and punish human rights violations committed by State agents, before having to face an international proceeding. This presupposes, however, that due process of law is available at the domestic level to investigate human rights violations and that such an investigation will be effective. If those conditions are not present, Article 46.2.a of the Convention authorizes the Commission to take the case before domestic remedies are exhausted. 49. The IACHR considers that the appropriate domestic remedies for ending the alleged violations are the ones that concern the non-relocation of the communities within the area declared to be for public use, with the gradual expropriation that followed. 50. The petitioners are claiming the exceptions to the rule requiring exhaustion of domestic remedies: the exception allowed under Article 31.2.a of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, i.e., on the grounds that Brazilian law does not 17 State decree No. 7.820, dated September 12, 1980. 9