29. With respect to the land claim proceedings, the State reports that the lands claimed by the indigenous community were declared part of their traditional habitat. 30. The State actively participated in the meetings between the parties held in Asunción and Washington, D.C. IV. ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. The Commission’s Competence Ratione Loci, Ratione Personae, Ratione Temporis, and Ratione Materiae 31. The petitioners are entitled, under Article 44 of the American Convention, to lodge complaints with the Commission. As its alleged victims, the petition identifies individual persons 7 with respect to whom the State of Paraguay has assumed the commitment of respecting and ensuring the rights enshrined in the American Convention. As regards the State, the Commission notes that Paraguay has been a state party to the American Convention since ratifying it on August 24, 1989. The Commission therefore has competence ratione personae to examine the complaint. 32. The Commission has competence ratione loci to hear this petition, since it alleges violations of rights protected by the American Convention occurring within the territory of a state party thereto. 33. The Commission has competence ratione temporis, since the incidents alleged in the petition took place at a time when the obligation of respecting and guaranteeing the rights enshrined in the Convention was already in force for the State of Paraguay. 34. Finally, the Commission has competence ratione materiae, since the petition describes violations of human rights that are protected by the American Convention. 35. With respect to the section of the petitioners’ complaint alleging that the State of Paraguay ignored Article 27 of the ICCPR and Articles 1(2), 2(1), 4(1), and 5(a) of ILO Convention 169, the Commission does not have competence in this regard; it may and must, however, use them as guidelines for interpreting the conventional obligations, as described in Article 29 of the Convention. B. Admissibility Requirements 1. Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies 36. Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention stipulates that one requirement for a petition to be admitted is that “the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law.” Article 46(2) of the American Convention provides that the terms of Article 46(1)(a) do 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; and (c) there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. 37. With respect to the key aspect of the petition—the recovery of the indigenous community’s ancestral territory—the petitioners claim that they began the proceedings provided for that purpose by Paraguayan domestic law in 1993. File No. 7261/93, also involving the INDI, was 7 The petitioners provided a register of the indigenous community, individually listing each one of its members. 6