alleged forced disappearance of Mr. Jeremías Osorio Rivera. It added that the passage of many years without punishment of those possibly responsible for the actions is due to the inherent complexity of an investigation of forced disappearance, with the requirements involved in identifying perpetrators of this type of crime. 19. The State affirmed that “the grounds for the petition no longer exist because a judicial investigation is under way which will determine the responsibility of the alleged perpetrator and, therefore, the corresponding punishment.” Accordingly, and in the light of Article 48(1)(b) of the American Convention, the State requested the IACHR to archive the petition. 20. It alleged that the criminal proceedings initiated in September 2004 have not concluded, given that the Supreme Court of Justice has not issued a final resolution. In this sense, it asserted that the petition does not meet the requirement set forth in Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention. As to the acquittal judgment issued by the National Criminal Court on December 17, 2008 in favor of Juan Carlos Tello Delgado, the State pointed out that the aforesaid decision was in line with the evidence produced during the trial, which it claimed were not sufficient to oppose the right of the defendant to be presumed innocent. Finally, it asserted that the CIDH is not entitled to act as a Court of Appeal and review the alleged breaches in the analysis of law and fact eventually incurred by the domestic tribunals regarding the supposed forced disappearance of Mr. Jeremías Osorio Rivera. IV. ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione temporis, and ratione materiae of the Commission 21. The petitioners are empowered by Article 44 of the Convention to submit complaints to the Commission. The alleged victim is a natural person who was under the jurisdiction of the Peruvian State on the date of the alleged events. For its part, Peru ratified the American Convention on July 28, 1978. Consequently, the Commission is competent ratione personae to hear the petition. 22. The Commission is competent ratione loci to hear the petition, since it contains allegations of violations of rights protected by the American Convention that allegedly took place within the territory of a state party to that treaty. 23. In addition, the Commission is competent ratione temporis because the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected by the American Convention was already in force for the State at the time of the events alleged in the petition. 24. Finally, the Commission is competent ratione materiae because, as will be explained further, the petition contains allegations of actions that could constitute violations of human rights protected by the American Convention and by the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, ratified by Peru on February 8, 2002. B. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 25. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention provides that, in order for a petition presented to the Inter-American Commission under 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. This requirement was established to allow national authorities the opportunity to consider alleged violations of protected rights and, if applicable, resolve such matters before they might be heard by an international body. 26. The prior exhaustion requirement applies when the national system truly provides available recourse to properly and effectively remedy the alleged violation. In that connection, Article 46(2) stipulates that such requirement shall not apply when the domestic law of the state concerned does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right in question, or if 4