thereto. The Commission has competence ratione temporis since the obligation of respecting and ensuring the rights protected by the American Convention was already in force for the State on the date on which the incidents described in the petition allegedly occurred. Finally, the Commission has competence ratione materiae since the petition describes violations of human rights that are protected by the American Convention. 39. Regarding the alleged violations of the American Declaration, both the Court and the Commission have ruled that the American Declaration is a source of international obligations for OAS member states,7 and so, in principle, the Commission has competence ratione materiae to examine violations of rights enshrined in that Declaration. However, the IACHR has stated that after the Convention has come into force for a State, it is that instrument and not the Declaration that is the primary source of law that the Inter-American Commission is to apply,8 provided that the petition alleges violations of rights that are substantially identical in the two instruments and that an ongoing situation is not involved. In the matter at hand, the IACHR notes that the provisions of the Declaration and those of the Convention that the petitioners have invoked are similar, with the exception of the right to the benefits of culture (Article XIII) and the right to health and well-being (Article XI) enshrined in the Declaration and not expressly provided for in the American Convention. Consequently, the Commission will examine the petitioners’ contentions as regards those articles of the Declaration. B. Other Admissibility Requirements of the Petition 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 40. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention provides that for a petition submitted to the Inter-American Commission in accordance with Article 44 of the Convention to be admitted, remedies under domestic law must have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. The prior exhaustion requirement applies when the national system does in fact offer available resources that are adequate and effective for remedying the alleged violation. Thus, Article 46(2) states that the requirement does not apply when: (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; and (c) there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. 7 See: I/A Court H. R., Interpretation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man within the Framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-10/89 of July 14, 1989, Series A No. 10, paras. 35-45; IACHR, James Terry Roach and Jay Pinkerton (United States), Case 9647, Res. 3/87, September 22, 1987, Annual Report 1986-1987, paras. 46-49; Rafael Ferrer-Mazorra and Others (United States), Report No. 51/01, Case 9903, April 4, 2001. See also: Statute of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Article 20. 8 IACHR, Report on Admissibility No. 03/01, Case 11.670, Amílcar Menéndez and others (Argentina), January 19, 2001, para. 41. IACHR, Report on Admissibility No. 16/05, Petition 281/02, Claudia Ivette González (Mexico), February 24, 2005, para. 16. 8