38. Lastly, the Commission has competence ratione materiae, since the petition refers to alleged violation of human rights protected by the American Convention and the Convention of Belém do Pará. With regard to the American Declaration, the Inter-American Commission has held that, once the American Convention enters into force in a State, the primary source of applicable law will be that treaty rather than the American Declaration,32 provided the petition refers to a violation of essentially identical rights enshrined in both instruments,33, and does not involve an ongoing violation.34 In the instant case, the articles of the American Declaration cited by the petitioner are incorporated in the cited articles of the American Convention. B. 1. Admissibility of the petition Exhaustion of domestic remedies 39. Article 46(1)(a) and (2) of the Convention establishes as a requirement for admission of a petition lodged with the Inter-American Commission that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law, unless (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 (c) there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. The Inter-American Court has repeatedly held that “the State claiming non-exhaustion has an obligation to prove that domestic remedies remain to be exhausted and that they are effective.”35 32 See IACHR, Report N° 03/01, Case 11.670, Amilcar Menéndez, Juan Manuel Caride et al. (Social Security System), Argentina, January 19, 2001, para. 41. 33 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, para. 46. 34 See, for example, IACHR, Report Nº 1/01, Case 12.085, Ana Elena Townsend DiezCanseco et al., (intercepted telephone conversation), Peru, January 19, 2001, para. 23 and IACHR, Annual Report 1998, Report N° 38/99, Argentina, March 11, 1999, para. 13. 35 I-A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 88; Case of Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales, Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987, Series C No. 2, para. 8; Case of Godínez Cruz, Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987, Series C No. 3, para. 90; Case of Gangaram Panday, Preliminary Objections. Judgment of December 4, 1991, Series C No.12, para. 38; Case of Neira Alegría et al., Preliminary Objections. Judgment of December 11, 1991, Series C No.13, para. 30; Case of Castillo Páez, Preliminary Objections. Judgment of January 30, 1996, Series C No. 24, para. 40; Case 13