20. The State indicates that proceedings are still under way and have not expired and that these are being developed in line with the deadlines and processes established in the Paraguayan law, which is in agreement with Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. The State also alleges that in this case, the guardians, both parents, and the maternal grandparents of the child initiated seven different proceedings before the national judicial bodies: a) “L.M. Measure of protection and support (Medida de protección y amparo)”; b) “L.M. Contesting paternity” (Impugnación de paternidad); c) “L.M. Termination of the parent-child legal relationship” (Pérdida de la patria potestad); d) “L.M. Guardianship and Provisional Access Arrangements” (Guarda y Régimen de Relacionamiento Provisorio); e) “L.M. Access Arrangements”; f) “L.M. Access Arrangements (Relacionamiento)”; g) “V.H.R. and L.S.M. Abandonment and others” (Abandono y otros). 21. It indicates that the right to defense and procedural guarantees was never denied to the parties by the national jurisdictional bodies, and that the delay alleged by the petitioners was not caused by the State but, that it was due to the remedies lodged by the parties. 22. Based on the above-mentioned, the State requests the Commission to declare the petition inadmissible because domestic remedies were not exhausted and because it does not establish violations of human rights. IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence of the Commission ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis and ratione loci 23. The petitioners are entitled, under Article 44 of the American Convention, to file complaints before the Commission. The petition names as the alleged victim an individual for whom the State has assumed the commitment to respect and guarantee the rights protected by the American Convention. Regarding the State, the Commission notes that Paraguay is a State Party to the Convention since August 24, 1989, date on which it deposited its instrument of ratification. The Commission is therefore competent ratione personae to examine the petition. 24. The Commission has competence ratione loci to examine the petition, given that the alleged violations of human rights occurred in a State Party to the American Convention. The IACHR has competence ratione temporis, since the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected in the American Convention existed on the date it is claimed that the violations of rights alleged in the petition occurred. Finally, the Commission is competent ration materiae, inasmuch as the petition alleges the violation of human rights protected under the American Convention. B. Other requirements for the admissibility of the petition 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 25. Article 46 of the American Convention establishes as requirement for the admission of a petition “that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law”. The aim of this requirement is to enable national authorities to be apprised of the alleged violation of a protected right and, if appropriate, to have the opportunity to settle the matter before it is considered at the international level. 26. The requirement of exhausting domestic remedies refers to those judicial remedies that are available, appropriate, and effective to settle the alleged violation of human rights. The same Convention provides that this provision shall not be applicable when domestic remedies are unavailable for de facto or de jure reasons. Specifically, Article 46.2 establishes exceptions to the general principle of exhaustion of domestic remedies 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 4