inhabitants (saneamiento). Nonetheless, it reports that the State did not have the economic resources necessary to continue this procedure, notwithstanding the budgetary efforts that were said to have been executed. 30. With respect to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the State argues that the agreement signed by the parties does not presuppose any exhaustion of domestic remedies. In this regard, it notes that the alleged victims should have sought the payment of compensation through the administrative mechanisms that have been established by domestic legislation to guarantee the rights of private persons vis-à-vis the activity of the administration, and if that effort were not fruitful, then take recourse to judicial action. 31. Specifically, Honduras argues that the alleged victims should have filed an administrative claim prior to taking judicial action, as regulated in the Law on Administrative Procedures, which would constitute due process of law for the protection of the right allegedly violated. It argues that once said remedy is exhausted, the alleged victims could have filed the corresponding judicial action. Therefore, it concludes that domestic remedies have yet to be exhausted, and it asks that the petition be found inadmissible. IV. ANALYSIS ON COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence of the Inter-American Commission ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione temporis and ratione materiae 32. The petitioner is authorized by Article 44 of the American Convention to submit petitions to the Commission. The petition identifies as alleged victims, to the Garifuna Community of Punta Piedra and its members who belong to the Garifunas indigenous people 11, whose rights, enshrined in the American Convention, the State had committed and undertaken to respect and protect. As regards the State, the Commission notes that Honduras has been a state party to the American Convention since September 8, 1977, when it deposited its instrument of ratification. Therefore, the Commission is competent ratione personae to examine the petition. In addition, the Commission is competent ratione loci to take cognizance of the petition because it alleges violations of rights protected by the American Convention that are said to have taken place in the territory of Honduras, a state party to that treaty. 33. The Commission is competent ratione temporis insofar as the obligation to respect and ensure the rights protected in the American Convention was already in force for the State as of the date of the facts alleged in the petition. Finally, the Commission is competent ratione materiae, because the petition alleges possible violations of the human rights protected by the American Convention. 34. With regard to what is raised by the petitioner in the complaint, to the effect that it seeks a finding that the State of Honduras violated ILO Convention 169, the Commission has no jurisdiction over the matter, without prejudice to which it can be used as a guide for interpreting the conventional obligations, in light of Article 29 of the American Convention. 12 B. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 11 The alleged victims belong to the Garifuna Community of Punta Piedra, with a population of approximately 1,500 members. This community is located in specific geographic areas and their individual members can be identified. In this regard, see I/A Court H.R., Matter of The Communities of Jiguamiandó and Curbaradó regarding Colombia. Judgment dated March 6, 2003, ninth clause; Matter of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó regarding Colombia. Judgment dated June 18, 2002, eighth clause; Matter of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó regarding Colombia. Judgment dated November 24, 2000, seventh clause; I/A Court H.R., The Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua Case. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 149; Matter of Pueblo indígena de Sarayaku regarding Ecuador. Judgment dated July 6, 2004, para. 9. CIDH, Report No. 58/09, Kuna of Madungandí and Emberá of Bayano Indigenous Peoples and their Members (Panamá), para. 26; IACHR, Report No. 79/09, Ngobe Indigenous Communities and their members in the Changuilona River Valley (Panamá), para. 26 12 Along the same lines, see IACHR, Report No. 29/06, Petition 906-03, Admissibility, Garifuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz and its members, para. 39; and IACHR, Report No. 39/07, Petition 1118/03, Admissibility, Garifuna Community of Cayos Cochinos and its members, para. 49 5