composed of representatives of the Secretaría de la Defensa Nacional [Ministry of National Defense] and of the Dirección General de Derechos Humanos y Democracia [Office of the Director for Human Rights and Democracy] of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Guerrero, and representatives of the petitioners, to jointly review the investigation process, identify necessary proceedings to clarify the facts, and subsequently have female personnel carry out the agreed proceedings. IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence of the Commission rationae personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis and ratione loci 18.The petitioners are authorized by Article 44 to lodge complaints before the IACHR. The petition identifies Inés Fernández Ortega as the alleged victim, an individual with respect to whom the Mexican State undertook to respect and guarantee the rights provided for by the American Convention. Regarding the State, Mexico is a party to the American Convention since March 24, 1981, the date on which it deposited its instrument of ratification. For these reasons, the Commission is competent rationae personae to examine the petition. 19.The Mexican State, in addition, ratified the Convention of Belém do Pará on November 12, 1998 and the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture on June 22, 1987. Therefore, the IACHR is competent rationae temporisto examine the merits of the arguments regarding alleged violations of said international instruments. 20.The IACHR is competent ratione loci and materiae to examine the petition, because it alleges the violation of human rights protected by the American Convention, the Convention of Belém do Pará, and the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, within the territory of Mexico, a State Party to said treaties. B. Other requirements for admissibility of the petition 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 21.The Mexican State has made the sole argument that the process is still in the investigation stage. The petitioners contend that domestic remedies have been exhausted, having filed an amparo petition which was denied, and a subsequent request for amparo review, that argued the absence of independence and impartiality of the military venue. The petitioners also invoke the applicability of the exception to the exhaustion of domestic remedies on the basis of an unwarranted delay caused by the intervention of an organ without jurisdiction which lacks impartiality and the proper disposition to act. 22.It must first be clarified which are the domestic remedies that should be exhausted according to the provisions, in spirit and in letter, of Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention. This rule requires, for the admissibility of a petition, “that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law.” The Inter-American Court has interpreted the norm to mean that the remedies that should be exhausted are only those that are adequate to remedy the alleged violations.Adequate domestic 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 an effect and should not be interpreted in such a way as to negate its effect or lead to a result that is manifestly absurd or unreasonable. 3 23.The Commission’s jurisprudence acknowledges that when a crime is committed which is ex officio prosecutable, the State is under the obligation to set the criminal law system into motion and to process the matter until the end, 4and that, in these cases, this is the 3 I/A Court H.R.,Velásquez Rodríguez Case.Judgment of July 29, 1988, Series C No. 4, para.63. 4 IACHR, Report No. 52/97, Case 11,218, Arges Sequeira Mangas, Nicaragua, February 18, 1998, paras. 96-97. See also Report No. 55/97, para. 392. 4