the criminal procedure under the police jurisdiction guarantees the parties due process and its impartiality is illustrated by the measures taken: It asked for further forensic medical expert testimony, it ordered exhumation of the corpse, it took testimony from persons who could have been involved in his death, and it ordered the preventive detention of the suspects, within a reasonable time. 32. As regards the right to judicial guarantees, the State argued that it provided effective remedies to the family members, that both in the regular jurisdiction and in the special jurisdiction the death of the alleged victim was investigated at the initiative of the authorities, that his wife participated in the two proceedings, that in the regular jurisdiction she was afforded the opportunity to challenge the recusal of the criminal law judge and that before the police judge she filed briefs and requests that were attended to by the police judge until up to his acceptance of the abandonment. The State also indicated that it cannot be accused of failure to provide effective judicial protection if the alleged victim’s wife presented a brief abandoning the proceeding, dated September 2, 1993, voluntarily waiving her rights as a party to the proceeding. IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence of the Commission ratione materiae, ratione personae, ratione temporis and ratione loci 33. The petitioners are authorized by Article 44 of the American Convention to present complaints or petitions on behalf of the alleged victims to the Commission. They were under the jurisdiction of the Ecuadorian State as of the date of the facts adduced. In addition, Ecuador has been a state party to the American Convention since December 28, 1977, the date on which it deposited its instrument of ratification. Therefore, the Commission is competent ratione personae to examine the petition. The Commission is competent ratione loci to take cognizance of the petition insofar as it alleges violations of rights established in the American Convention in the territory of Ecuador. In addition, the Commission is competent ratione temporis insofar as the obligation to respect and ensure the rights protected in the American Convention were already in force for the State as of the date of the facts alleged in the petition. Finally, the Commission is competent ratione materiae, since the petition alleges possible violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. B. Admissibility requirements 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 34. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention provides that in order for a complaint submitted to the Commission pursuant to Article 44 of the same instrument to be admissible, one must have pursued and exhausted domestic remedies in keeping with generally recognized principles of international law. Article 46(2) specifies that the requirement does not apply when: (i) there is no due process in the domestic legislation to protect the right in question; (ii) the alleged victim did not have access to domestic remedies; or (iii) there is an unwarranted delay in the decision of such remedies. 35. The purpose of the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies is to afford an opportunity to the national authorities to take cognizance of the alleged violation of a protected right and, if appropriate, to have an opportunity to resolve it before it is taken up by an international body. The InterAmerican Court has indicated in this regard that one must exhaust only those remedies that are adequate to cure the violations presumably committed. Adequate remedies are those which: are suitable to address an infringement of a legal right. A number of remedies exist in the legal system of every country, but not all are applicable in every circumstance. If a remedy is not adequate in a specific case, it obviously need not be exhausted. A norm is meant to have