A. The Commission’s jurisdiction ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis, and ratione loci 34. The petitioners are authorized by Article 44 of the American Convention to lodge petitions with the IACHR. The petition states that the alleged victim is an individual in respect of whom the Honduran State undertook the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights enshrined in the American Convention. As regards the State, the Commission notes that Honduras has been a party to the American Convention since September 8, 1977, the date on which it deposited the corresponding instrument of ratification. Consequently, the Commission has personal jurisdiction to consider the petition. 35. The Commission has jurisdiction of place to take cognizance of the petition, because the alleged violations of the rights protected by the American Convention took place within the territory of a state party to that instrument in this case the State of Honduras. The InterAmerican Commission has jurisdiction ratione temporis, because the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected by the American Convention was already in force for the State on the date on which the acts alleged in the petition occurred. Finally, the Commission has subject matter jurisdiction, since the petition reports violations of the human rights protected by the American Convention. B. Other requirements for admissibility of a petition 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 36. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention states that admissibility of a petition lodged with the Commission is subject to the requirement “that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted, in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law.” Article 46(2) of the Convention establishes three situations in which the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies does not apply: 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. 37. In the case in point, the petitioners allege that over ten years have elapsed since the death of Mrs. Blanca Jeanette Kawas Fernández, yet none of the persons responsible for planning or executing the crime has been punished. For this reason, they argue that this case falls within the scope of the exceptions stipulated in Article 46(2) of the American Convention and that as a result the case should be declared admissible. 4 38. The Commission has held as a general rule that a criminal investigation should be conducted promptly to protect the interests of the victims, preserve evidence, and safeguard the rights of any suspects considered in the context of the investigation. 5 Therefore, on application of the exception to exhaustion based on unwarranted delay, the Commission considers that although a series of investigations has been carried out by State judicial entities, involving different possible perpetrators of the crime, up to now they have not proceeded with identification and punishment of the perpetrators. Since more than ten years have elapsed since the murder of the alleged victim, the Commission must therefore decide at this point on the admissibility of the petition, on the basis of the arguments presented by the parties. It should be noted that the causes and effects that have prevented exhaustion of domestic remedies in this case will be examined as relevant in the report adopted by the IACHR on the merits of the case, in order to determine whether they in fact represent violations of the American Convention. 6 1. 4 5 6 Deadline for presentation Report N° 63/04 Petition 60/2003, Carlos Antonio Luna López, Admissibility, Honduras, October 13, 2004. Report N° 34/01, Case 12,250, Mapiripán Massacre, 2001 Annual Report of the IACHR, paragraph 24. Report N° 34/01, Case 12,250, Mapiripán Massacre, 2001 Annual Report of the IACHR, paragraph 24. 5