A. 1. Competence Commission’s competence ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione temporis, and ratione materiae 45. The petitioner is authorized, under Article 44 of the Convention, to file applications on behalf of the alleged victims. The alleged victims in the case were under the jurisdiction of the State of Bolivia at the time of the reported events. In consequence, the Commission has competence ratione personae to examine the case. 46. The Commission has competence ratione loci to hear the case, since the petition alleges violations of rights protected under the American Convention that would have taken place within the territory of a State party to that treaty. 47. Moreover, the Commission has competence ratione temporis, since the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected by the American Convention and by the Convention of Belém do Pará was already in effect for the State at the time the incidents alleged in the petition would have occurred. Specifically, the State of Bolivia ratified the American Convention on July 19, 1979, and the Convention of Belém do Pará on December 5, 1994. In terms of the InterAmerican Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, the Commission notes that the State ratified that treaty on November 21, 2006, that is to say, subsequent to the events alleged in the petition. In that regard, the Commission has competence ratione temporis to pass judgment on possible violations of that treaty that would have taken place since the time of the referenced date. 48. Finally, the Commission has competence ratione materiae because the petition denounces alleged human rights violations protected by the American Convention. Further, according to Article 12 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, the Commission has jurisdiction to hear individual petitions related to alleged violations of Article 7 of that instrument. B. Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies 49. Article 46.1a) of the American Convention states that, in order for a petition filed with the Inter-American Commission to be admissible under Article 44 of the Convention, domestic remedies must have been pursued and exhausted, in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. The purpose of this requirement is to allow national authorities to hear alleged violations of protected rights and, where appropriate, have the opportunity to resolve them before they are heard before an international instance. 50. The requirement of prior exhaustion is applied when the national system has available remedies that are adequate and effective to remedy the alleged violation. In this regard, Article 46.2 specifies that the requirement does not apply when domestic legislation does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right in question; or if the alleged victim did not have access to remedies under domestic law; or if there are unwarranted delays in the deciding those remedies. As indicated in Article 31 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, when the petitioner alleges one of these exceptions, it is up to the State to demonstrate that domestic remedies have not been exhausted, unless that can clearly be deduced from the case file. 51. The Commission notes that the State has claimed the failure to exhaust domestic remedies, putting forward three arguments: i) that the alleged victims filed the petition when a definitive verdict still did not exist in the criminal 8