can be individually identified and with respect to whom the Honduran State undertook to respect and ensure the rights enshrined in the American Convention. 27. Honduras ratified the American Convention on September 8, 1977, the date on which it deposited its respective instrument of ratification, and it accepted the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on September 9, 1981; therefore the Commission is competent ratione personae to examine the petition. The Commission is competent ratione materiae since the petition refers to alleged violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. The Commission is also competent ratione temporis insofar as the facts alleged occurred once the obligation to respect and ensure the rights established by the Convention was already in force for the Honduran State, which ratified it September 8, 1977. The Commission is competent ratione loci because the facts alleged occurred in the territory of Honduras, a country that ratified the American Convention. 28. With respect to what petitioners raise in the complaint to the effect that it should be found that the State repudiated ILO Convention 169, the Commission is not competent to apply Convention 169 directly, although it can and should use it as a guideline for interpreting obligations under the Convention, in light of Article 29 of the American Convention. B. 1. Other admissibility requirements of a petition Exhaustion of domestic remedies 29. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention provides that for a petition submitted to the Inter-American Commission to be admissible under Article 44 of the Convention, one must first have pursued and exhausted domestic remedies, in keeping with generally recognized principles of international law. Article 46(2) of the Convention establishes that the requirement of prior exhaustion will not be applied 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; or there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. 30. As the Inter-American Court has established, whenever a State alleges that a petitioner has failed to exhaust domestic remedies, it bears the burden of showing that the remedies that have not been exhausted are “adequate” to cure the violation alleged, that is, that the function of those remedies within the domestic law system is suitable to protect the legal situation infringed.30 31. In the instant case, the State alleges that the petition does not meet the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies, provided for at Article 46 of the American Convention, since the labor-related administrative and judicial procedures were not duly exhausted, by omission and abandonment by the alleged victims. 31 It argues that Honduras has a legal system that protects the rights of the persons engaged in fishing, and provides free legal assistance. disability as a result of the inadequate conditions in which they perform their activities as divers. See Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Community of Awas Tingni. Judgment of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights, August 31, 2001.Series C No. 79, para. 149. 30 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4. 31 State’s brief of observations, February 23, 2005, p. 1.