6 November 12, 1998, and the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons on April 9, 2002. Therefore, the Commission has ratione personae jurisdiction to examine the petition. Furthermore, the Commission is also competent ratione loci to hear the petition inasmuch as in alleges violations of rights protected in the American Convention that would have occurred within the territory of Mexico, a State Party to that instruments. 28. The Commission is also competent ratione temporis in that the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected in the American Convention were in effect for the State on the date when the events alleged in the petition would have occurred. Finally, the Commission is competent ratione materiae, because the petition reports possible violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. B. Other requirements for admissibility of the petition 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 29. Article 46.1.a) of the American Convention stipulates that for a complaint on the presumed violation of the American Convention to be admissible, prior exhaustion of remedies available in domestic jurisdiction is required, in keeping with generally recognized principles of international law. Article 46.2 of the Convention provides that the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies is not applicable when: (i) 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; (ii) 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 (iii) there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. 30. In this petition the State alleges lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies, by virtue of the fact that an open investigation is underway under regular criminal jurisdiction. For their part, the petitioners hold that there has been unwarranted delay in the domestic processes, given the severity of the facts denounced and that initially the matter was heard in a military court. They also allege the nonexistence of an effective legal appeal for denouncing the alleged forced disappearance of the presumed victims. 31. In view of the allegations of the parties, in the first place, it behooves the Commission to clarify which domestic remedies should have been exhausted in the present petition in light of the jurisprudence of the Inter-American system. The Commission observes that the purpose of the present petition relates to the facts concerning the alleged forced disappearance of Nitza Paola, Rocio Irene, and José Ángel Alvarado and to aspects related to the legal elucidation of same. The precedents established by the Commission point out that whenever a 8 crime can be prosecuted ex officio, the State has the obligation to promote and further the criminal proceedings and that, in those cases, it is the appropriate means to elucidate the facts, judge the responsible parties, and establish the corresponding criminal penalties, as well as to make other forms of pecuniary reparation possible. 32. With regard to the requirement under study, the IACHR bears in mind that the relatives of the presumed victims filed complaints with the following, among others: i) the Office of the Public Prosecutor of regular jurisdiction of Buenaventura on December 31, 2009; ii) the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, the Office of the Public Prosecutor of the Federation, on January 6, 2010. 33. In this regard, the IACHR notes that the matter was initially heard in military criminal court and in regular court. In military court, the Office of the Attorney General of Military Justice ordered initiation of 8 IACHR, Report No. 52/97, Case 11.218, Arges Sequeira Mangas, 1997 IACHR Annual Report, paragraphs 96 and 97. See also Report No. 55/97, Case 11.137, Abella et al., paragraph 392.