1.Admission by the Commission of a petition or communication lodged in accordance with Articles 44 or 45 shall be subject to the following requirements: a.that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law[.] 47. The Commission and the Court have repeatedly insisted on their “reinforcing and complementary” 6 status within the inter-American system of protection of human rights. 7 This status is reflected in Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention, which permits States parties to decide cases within their own legal framework, before there is need for recourse to an international proceeding. 48.In the instant case, the petitioners allege that to find a remedy for the purported violations of constitutional rights they have taken adequate action before the courts of domestic jurisdiction provided by Chilean law. They assert, nevertheless, that these actions have not been sufficient to ensure the rights purportedly violated by the State. 49. The petitioners allege that domestic remedies were exhausted by the Supreme Court's August 18, 1998 decision to declare their recurso de queja inadmissible. The State argues that there were legislative and administrative remedies available to the petitioners. 50. The Commission notes that the State claiming non-exhaustion has an obligation to prove that domestic remedies remain to be exhausted and that such remedies are adequate and effective. 8 "Adequate domestic remedies are those which are suitable to address an infringement of a legal right." 9 "Effectiveness" refers to the capability of a particular remedy to produce the result for which it was designed. 10 51. With respect to the legislative remedy proposed by the State, the Commission finds that a legislative remedy can never be an effective remedy because it is not available to all persons, nor are there guarantees that it will be impartially applied, a requirement for "effectiveness." With respect to the administrative remedy argued by the State, the Commission finds that it is not an adequate or effective remedy in this case. The administrative norm referred to does not specifically protect the right to access to information and does not set forth any guidelines for the protection of this right. Moreover, the petitioners have previously essentially complied with the terms of the statute, having written a letter to the agency in question, and were denied access to the information requested. Given these facts, the Commission concludes that the administrative recurso de reposición does not constitute an adequate and effective remedy and that the petitioners need not exhaust it. 52.Consequently, without prejudice to the merits of the case, the Commission considers that the requirements of Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention have been met. C. Deadline for submission of the petition to the IACHR 6 American Convention on Human Rights, Preamble, para. 2. 7 See eg, IACt.HR, Velásquez Rodriguez Case (Honduras), Series C Nº 4, Judgment of July 29, 1988, para. 61; IACHR, Resolution Nº 15/89, Case 10.208 (Dominican Republic), April 14, 1989, Conclusions, para. 5. 8 See IACt.HR, Velásquez Rodriguez Case, supra, paras. 59 & 63. 9 Id. at 64. 10 Id at 66.