7 IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence of the Commission ratione temporis, ratione personae, ratione materiae, and ratione loci 38. The petitioners are entitled, under Article 44 of the Convention, to file complaints. The alleged victim is an individual who was under the jurisdiction of the Peruvian State on the date of the alleged incidents: Peru ratified the American Convention on July 28, 1978. Consequently, the Commission has competence ratione personae to examine the petition. 39. The Commission has competence ratione loci to deal with the petition since it alleges violations of rights protected by the American Convention occurring within the territory of a state party thereto. 40. Similarly, the Commission has competence ratione materiae, because the petition alleges the violation of rights protected by the American Convention, by the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (hereinafter also “the IACPPT”), ratified by the State on February 27, 1990, and by Article 7 of the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women (hereinafter also “the Convention of Belém do Pará”), ratified by Peru on April 2, 1996. 41. The Commission has competence ratione temporis in that the obligations under the American Convention and the IACPPT were already in force for the State on the date the facts reportedly took place. The State contends that since it deposited its instrument of ratification of the Convention of Belém do Pará on June 4, 1996, the IACHR lacks the competence to rule on the provisions of that instrument in connection with the violent acts that allegedly occurred in 1993. 42. The IACHR’s doctrine holds that the obligation of investigating violence against women established by Article 7.b of the Convention of Belém do Pará remains in force until the facts are duly clarified and, if applicable, the guilty are punished. In light of its ongoing nature, that obligation applies even when the facts alleged in a petition took place prior to the date on which the State in question 8 deposited its instrument of ratification. Since the acts of violence against Gladys Carol Espinoza that allegedly took place in April and May 1993 have not been addressed by a criminal investigation, the IACHR holds that the possible obligation set out in the Convention of Belém do Pará remains in effect up to the present. The IACHR therefore dismisses Peru’s objection regarding a claimed lack of competence ratione temporis. B. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 43. Article 46.1.a of the American Convention states that for a complaint lodged with the Inter-American Commission in compliance with Article 44 of the Convention to be admissible, the remedies available under domestic law must have first been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. That requirement is intended to facilitate the domestic authorities’ examination of the alleged violation of a protected right and, if appropriate, to enable them to resolve it before it is brought before an international venue. 44. In its initial submissions, the State held that the petition was lodged with the IACHR when the final ruling by the judicial authorities in the proceedings against Ms. Espinoza Gonzales before the military courts was still pending. It therefore held that the complaint did not satisfy the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies requirement. On this point, the IACHR reiterates its doctrine whereby the analysis of 8 IACHR, Report No. 54/01, Case 12.051, Admissibility and Merits, Maria da Penha Maia Fernandes, Brazil, April 16, 2001, para. 27; and Report No. 73/01, Case 12.350, Admissibility, MZ, Bolivia, October 10, 2001, para. 24.