7 the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture that occurred within the territory of a state party to said instruments. 33. With respect to competence ratione temporis, the Commission notes that the alleged forced disappearances of Luis Eduardo González González and Oscar Tassino Asteazu of December 13, 1974 and July 19, 1977 respectively and the alleged extrajudicial executions of Diana Maidanic, Laura Raggio Odizzio, and Silvia Reyes of April 21, 1974, began and occurred before Uruguay ratified the American Convention on April 19, 1985. Accordingly, the source of applicable law is initially the American Declaration.2 Nonetheless, the IACHR notes that with respect to the facts that occurred as of April 19, 1985 or those that it could well consider as a situation of continuing violation of rights that subsisted after that date, the Commission is also competent ratione temporis to examine this petition under the American Convention. In addition, the Commission is competent ratione temporis to examine the facts alleged in this petition under the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons as of April 2, 1996, and under the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture as of November 10, 1992, dates on which it deposited the corresponding instruments of ratification. 34. Finally, the Commission is competent ratione materiae because the facts alleged suggest possible violations of the rights protected by the American Declaration, the American Convention, the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance, and the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. B. Other admissibility requirements 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 35. In order for a claim to be admitted for the alleged violation of the provisions of the American Convention, it must comply with the requirements established in Article 46(1) of that international instrument, and in Article 31 of its Rules of Procedure. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention provides that in order to determine the admissibility of a petition or communication presented to the IACHR in keeping with Articles 44 or 45 of that treaty one must have first pursued and exhausted domestic remedies, in keeping with generally accepted principles of international law. According to Article 31(1) of its Rules of Procedure, the Inter-American Commission should verify whether domestic remedies have been pursued and exhausted, in keeping with generally recognized principles of international law. 36. Article 46(2) of the American Convention and Article 31(2) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure provide that the prior exhaustion 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; or (c) there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. 37. With respect to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the State did not make specific arguments. Nonetheless, it reported that its Executive branch had gone forward in the investigation 2 Articles 1 and 20(b) of the Statute of the IACHR; Charter of the Organization of American Statute, Articles 3, 16, 51, 112, and 150; Rules of Procedure of the IACHR, Articles 23 and 51; and IACHR, Report No. 3/87, Case 9647, Admissibility and Merits, James Terry Roach and Jay Pinkerton, United States, September 22, 1987, paras. 46-49. See also 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.