petition would have occurred. Finally, the Commission is competentratione materiae, because the petition denounces possible violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. B. Admissibility requirements 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 32. Article 46.1.a of the American Convention requires the prior exhaustion of remedies available in the domestic courts in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law as a requirement for the admission of complaints regarding the alleged violation of the American Convention. 33. Article 46.2 of the Convention provides that the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies is not applicable 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; and c) there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. As established in the Commission’s Rules of Procedure and as confirmed by the Inter-American Court, whenever a State alleges the failure to exhaust domestic remedies on the part of the petitioner, it has the burden of demonstrating that the remedies that have not been exhausted are “adequate” for remedying the alleged violation, which means that the function of those remedies within the system of domestic law is suitable for protecting the legal right that has been infringed.21 34. In the instant case, the State alleges that the petition does not meet the requirement of prior exhaustion of remedies in the domestic courts, as provided in Article 46.1 of the American Convention given that there are three remedies that could have been exhausted by Mrs. Suárez Peralta -- the remedy of appeal against the operation of the statute of limitations; the recusal proceeding against the judge for delay in resolving the case; and the suit for damages and injury -- and thus Mrs. Suárez Peralta had access to the jurisdictional guarantees provided by the State. For his part, the petitioner alleges that the failure to act by the administrators of justice caused the definitive operation of the statute of limitations, and encouraged and promoted impunity by concealing the unlawful actions of individuals. In addition, the petitioner alleges that he did not have suitable, adequate, or effective remedies to protect the legal right that was violated, given that they would have been ineffective for prosecuting and punishing the perpetrators of the crime and preventing impunity. 35. The petitioner’s allegation falls within the exception to the exhaustion of domestic remedies provided under Article 46.2.a of the Convention, which establishes that the exception applies when “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.” 36. The Commission notes that the petitioner’s complaint revolves around the alleged failure to guarantee the duty of judicial protection through access to rapid and effective remedies. In concrete terms, this refers to the alleged unwarranted delay in resolving the proceeding on medical malpractice initiated on August 16, 2000, in which as the petitioner alleges the statute of limitations operated on September 20, 2005, due to the justice system’s failure to act. 21 I/A Court HR, Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C, No. 4, para. 64. 7