13 75. Finally, the Commission has ratione materiae competence because, as is explained in the section on colorability below, the petition alleges facts that could constitute violations of human rights protected by the American Convention; the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, which the Peruvian State ratified on February 27, 1990; and the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, which was ratified by Peru on February 13, 2002. B. Admissibility Requirements 1. Exhaustion of Remedies under Domestic Law 76. In order for a petition alleging a violation of the provisions of the American Convention to be admissible, it must comply with the requirements established in Article 46(1) of that international instrument. Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention States that to determine the admissibility of a petition or communication lodged in accordance with Articles 44 or 45 of the Convention, the remedies under domestic law must have been pursued 2 and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. 77. Article 46(2) of the Convention provides that the rule on prior exhaustion of domestic remedies does not apply when: a) b) c) 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; 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. 78. Under the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR, when the petitioner contends that he or she is unable to prove compliance with the requirement indicated in this article, it shall be up to the State concerned to demonstrate to the Commission that the remedies under domestic law have not been previously exhausted, 3 unless that is clearly evident from the record. 79. The petitioners argue that several of the exceptions to the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies contained in Article 46(2) of the American Convention apply in the instant case. In this connection, they note with respect to the first investigations that the remedies invoked were ineffective and that they were subsequently prevented from exhausting them by the amnesty laws in force from 1995 onwards. They argue that although two criminal trials are currently underway, neither of them has concluded, despite the fact that the events occurred almost 20 years ago, and that, to date, the location of the remains of the 15 victims has not been established, nor have the orders of arrest been executed, which constitutes an unwarranted delay in processing those remedies. 80. For its part, the State argues that when the petitioners first took their case to the inter-American system for protection of human rights in July 1991 they had not exhausted the mechanisms provided in the domestic jurisdiction, as required by Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention. The State mentions that, subsequently, when the petitioners extended their original petition they also failed in a timely manner to use the 2 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C, No. 124, par. 48; Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C, No. 114, par. 48; and Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C, No. 107, par. 80. 3 Article 31(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR. See also I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Judgment of July 29, 1988, par. 64.