22. The petitioners have standing under Article 44 of the American Convention to lodge petitions. In addition, Mayra Angelina Gutiérrez and her family were individuals under the jurisdiction of the State of Guatemala at the time of the facts adduced. Therefore, the Commission has ratione personae competence to examine the petition. The Commission is competent ratione loci to take cognizance of the petition, insofar as it alleges violations of the American Convention that are said to have taken place in the territory of a state party to that treaty. Similarly, the IACHR has ratione materiae competence because the petition refers to alleged violations of the American Convention. The Commission is also competent ratione temporis to examine the claim as Guatemala has been a state party to the American Convention since May 25, 1978, when it deposited its instrument of ratification. Therefore, the obligation of the State to respect and ensure the rights recognized in the American Convention was in force at the time that the alleged facts are said to have occurred. Likewise, the IACHR has subject matter and temporal competence to pronounce on the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, to which the state has been a party since February 25, 2000, which predates when the alleged facts purportedly began to occur. B. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 23. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention provides that in order for a complaint submitted to the Inter-American 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. This rule is designed to allow national authorities to examine alleged violations of protected rights and, as appropriate, to resolve them before they are taken up in an international proceeding. 24. That said, the prior exhaustion rule applies when there are actually available in the national system suitable and effective remedies to repair the alleged violation of human rights. In that regard, Article 46(2) of the Convention specifies that the requirement does not apply when: (i) there is no due process under domestic law to protect the right in question; (ii) the alleged victim did not have access to remedies under domestic law; or (iii) there is an unwarranted delay in the decision under those remedies. 25. The Commission recalls that in circumstances where evolution of the facts initially presented at the domestic level entails a change in terms of compliance or noncompliance with the admissibility requirements, its analysis must be based on the situation extant at the time of its pronouncement on admissibility.1 26. Furthermore, the precedents established by the Commission indicate that in cases of alleged forced disappearance, a criminal investigation and proceeding in the regular courts, initiated ex officio by the State upon being made aware of a possible crime of that nature, is the suitable recourse to clarify the facts, try those responsible, and, as applicable, establish appropriate criminal penalties, in addition to providing for other forms of reparation.2 27. The Commission notes that the criminal investigation opened in 2000. To date, almost 15 years later, the proceedings remain at the preliminary stage, without a final decision or clarification as to the fate or whereabouts of Ms. Gutiérrez. The Commission recalls that when petitioners invoke the exceptions set forth in Article 46 (2) of the Convention, as in this case, it is up to the State to demonstrate that those exceptions do not apply in a particular instance. In this case, the Commission notes that the State has offered no justification to explain, under the standard of prima facie analysis appropriate at this stage, the length of time taken by the criminal investigation and proceeding. The State's only argument concerns difficulties in locating the alleged culprit; however, the Commission is unable to grasp how that situation has a bearing on or might justify the time elapsed. 1 IACHR, Report No. 2/08, Petition 506-05, Admissibility, José Rodríguez Dañín, Bolivia, March 6, 2008, par. 57; Report No. 20/05, Petition 714/00, Admissibility, Rafael Correa Díaz, Peru, February 25, 2005, par. 32; and Report No. 25/04, Case 12.361, Admissibility, Ana Victoria Sánchez Villalobos et al. (Costa Rica), March 11, 2004, par. 45. 2 IACHR, Report No. 3/12, Case 12.224, Admissibility, Santiago Antezana Cueto et al., Peru, January 27, 2012, par. 24; and Report No. 48/13, Petition 880-11, Admissibility, Nitza Alvarado Espinoza et al., Mexico, July 12, 2013, par. 31. 4