invoked in the case. Once Argentina’s ratification became effective, the American Convention became the principal source of legal obligation,2 and the rights and obligations expressly cited by the petitioners became applicable. Accordingly, the Commission is competent ratione temporis to address the claims presented by the petitioners. 35. Finally, given that the petition alleges violations of rights protected under the American Declaration and Convention that have taken place in the territory of an OAS member state, the Commission concludes that it has the competence ratione loci to take cognizance of it. B. Other requirements for the admissibility of the petition a. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 36. Article 46 of the American Convention specifies that, in order for a case to be admitted, "remedies under domestic law [must] have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law." This requirement exists to ensure the state concerned the opportunity to resolve disputes within its own legal framework. When domestic remedies are unavailable as a matter of fact or law, however, the requirement that they be exhausted is excused.3 Article 46(2) of the Convention specifies that this exception applies: if the legislation of the state concerned fails to afford due process for the protection of the right allegedly violated; if the party alleging violation has been hindered in his or her access to domestic remedies; or if there has been unwarranted delay in the issuance of a final judgment. 37. In the present case, the parties are in agreement that the relevant domestic remedies with respect to Mr. Grande’s attempt to obtain compensation were exhausted with the April 12, 1994 decision of the Supreme Court of Justice to reject Mr. Grande’s recurso de queja. The petitioners indicate that Mr. Grande received notification of this decision on May 3, 1994, and the State has not contested this affirmation. The Commission concludes that May 3, 1994 is thus the relevant date for the purposes of its admissibility analysis. 38. In terms of the requirement of exhaustion and the scope of the petition, the Commission notes that the claims placed before it concern: Mr. Grande’s detention; the connected criminal prosecution initiated against him in 1980, a process which remained pending until the charges were definitively dismissed in 1989; and the civil proceedings he initiated to seek reparation. The petition refers to allegations of torture as a point of reference, but neither attempts to include these within the violations affirmed nor makes reference to those claims having been placed at any time before the national judiciary as required under Article 46. Further, according to the Commission’s review, these allegations were not raised within the domestic judicial proceedings at issue in the present matter. Accordingly these allegations are not included within the scope of the Commission’s review. b. Time period for submission of the petition 39. In accordance with Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention, a petition must be presented in a timely manner to be admitted, namely, within six months from the date on which the complaining party was notified of the final judgment at the domestic level. The six months rule ensures legal certainty and stability once a decision has been taken. 40. According to the record before the Commission, in the present case notification of the final judgment was received by Mr. Grande on May 3, 1994, and the petition was filed with a date of 2 Id., para. 46. 3 See IACtHR, Exceptions to the Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies (Art. 46.1, 46.2.a and 46.2.b American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-11/90 of August 10, 1990, Ser. A No. 11, para. 17. 7