30. The State alleged that “the judicial branch has pointed out that no inquiry was being instituted against the three accused, but has not denied that illegal acts were committed against the victims in the province of Huanta; instead, it underscores the need to take measures that make the investigation credible, so that the alleged authors cannot turn around and challenge the investigation as arbitrary actions taken by the administration of justice.” 12 31. Finally, the State indicated that on August 20, 2006, the Public Prosecutor’s Office decided to terminate the criminal case against Frigate Captain Álvaro Artaza Adrianzén, “based on the death certificate issued by the Municipality of Surco.” It added that the “declaration of Frigate Captain Álvaro Francisco Serapio Artaza Adrianzén’s presumed death (…) does not prevent the authorities who administer justice from pursuing the investigation and taking the necessary steps to establish the whereabouts of Rigoberto Tenorio Roca and punishing anyone it manages to identify as allegedly responsible, punishing those found guilty and making 13 reparations for the human rights violations committed.” IV. ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. The Commission’s competence ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione temporis and ratione materiae 32. Under Article 44 of the Convention, the petitioners are authorized to file complaints. The alleged victim in the case was under the jurisdiction of the Peruvian State at the time the alleged events occurred. Furthermore, Peru ratified the American Convention on July 28, 1978. The Commission thus has competence ratione personae to examine the petition. 33. The Commission has competence ratione loci to take up the petition inasmuch as it alleges violations of rights protected by the American Convention, violations said to have occurred within the territory of a State party to the Convention. 34. The Commission also has competence ratione temporis inasmuch as the obligation to respect and ensure the rights protected by the American Convention was already binding upon the Peruvian State on the date when the events alleged in the petition were said to have occurred. 35. Finally, the Commission has competence ratione materiae because, as will be explained in paragraphs 51 and 52 below, the facts alleged in the petition could tend to establish violations of rights protected by the American Convention on Human Rights and by the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, which Peru ratified on February 8, 2002. B. Exhaustion of local remedies 36. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention provides that in order for a case filed with the Commission in accordance with Article 44 of the Convention to be admitted, the remedies under domestic law must have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. The purpose of this requirement is to afford national authorities the opportunity to address the alleged violation of a protected right and, where appropriate, resolve it before the matter is brought to the attention of an international body. 37. The requirement of prior exhaustion applies when the domestic system affords remedies that are effective and adequate in remedying the alleged violation. In this sense, Article 46(2) specifies that the requirement is not applicable when the domestic legislation does not afford due process for the protection of the right in question; or if the alleged victim did not have access to domestic remedies; or if there was unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under those remedies. 12 Communication received from the State on June 23, 2009, p. 12. 13 Communication received from the State received on June 23, 2009, p. 13. 6