23. As for the requirement of the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies, the State argues that adequate and effective remedies subsist if the petitioner considers that the right to reparation has not been satisfied. More specifically, the State makes reference to action for tort liability, which is different in nature 7 from the action for direct reparation before the contentious-administrative jurisdiction and prescribes 20 years from the date of the underlying facts. 24. In its final considerations, the State asks that the petition be declared inadmissible because the facts do not tend to establish violations of the American Convention, that in issuing a pronouncement with regard to the alleged violations by the Commission would be sitting as a fourth instance, and that adequate and effective remedies are still available as per Article 46(1)(a), in the event that the petitioner wishes to accede to reparations additional to those obtained in the domestic legal system. IV. ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence 25. The petitioner is authorized, in principle, by Article 44 of the American Convention to submit petitions to the Commission. The petition indicates as the alleged victim an individual with respect to whom the Colombian State undertook to respect and ensure the rights enshrined in the American Convention. As regards the State, the Commission notes that Colombia has been a state party to the American Convention as of July 31, 1973, the date on which it deposited its instrument of ratification. Therefore, the Commission is competent ratione personae to examine the petition. 26. In addition, the Commission is competent ratione loci to take stock of the petition insofar as it alleges violations of rights protected in the American Convention said to have taken place in the territory of Colombia, a state party to that treaty. The Commission is competent ratione temporis insofar as the obligation to respect and ensure the rights protected in the American Convention was already in force for the State as of the date on which the facts described in the petition are alleged to have taken place. 27. As regards the arguments regarding possible violations of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, the Commission observes that Colombia deposited its instrument of ratification of that Convention on January 19, 1999, and that the facts alleged in the petition were said to have occurred in 1992, i.e. prior to Colombia’s ratification of that international instrument. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the Commission would be competent ratione temporis to apply the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture in relation to the alleged denial of justice for events that occurred subsequent to ratification of the Convention by the State. 28. Finally, the Commission is competent ratione materiae, because the petition alleges possible violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. B. Admissibility requirements 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 29. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention requires the prior exhaustion of the remedies available in the domestic jurisdiction in keeping with generally recognized principles of international law as a requirement for the admissibility of claims regarding the alleged violation of the American Convention. The purpose of this requirement is to allow the national authorities to take stock of the alleged violation of a protected right and, if approved, to resolve it before it comes before an international body. In the instant case, the petitioner alleges that the remedies provided for in the domestic jurisdiction have been 7 The State argues that “there is a clear difference between civil negligence, criminal negligence, and state responsibility in the administrative are … consequently the circumstance of having denied the claims of the direct reparation action in the administrative jurisdiction, which the petitioner describes as 'responsabilidad extracontratual' (tort liability), in no way limits his possibility of going before the Civil Judge of the Circuit of the regular jurisdiction to obtain recognition and payment of a comprehensive reparation of the harm.” Brief of observations of the State DDH.GOI No. 33801/1714 of June 26, 2009, paras. 32-33. 5