of 765 persons have so far been identified and, for purposes of admissibility, will be recognized as presumed victims, without prejudice to such new evidence as may be uncovered in the future and may prove the identity of other victims in the same events. Consequently, the Commission has jurisdiction ratione personae to hear the petition. 31. The Commission has jurisdiction ratione materiae because the petitioners allege violations of rights protected by the American Convention that, if proven, mined constitute violations of Articles 1.1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 19, 21 and 25 of the Convention. 32. The Commission has jurisdiction ratione loci because the alleged violations took place within the territory of a State party to the American Convention. The Commission has jurisdiction ratione temporis because, when the alleged events began, the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights established in the American Convention was already in force for the Salvadoran State. B. Other admissibility requirements 1. Exhaustion of internal remedies 33. Article 46.1 of the American Convention provides, as an admissibility requirement, that a claim must first exhaust the remedies available under the internal jurisdiction of a State. Generally recognized principles of international law require that those internal remedies be formally in place, be adequate to protect the rights allegedly infringed and effective in securing the results envisaged in establishing them. 6 The international protection of human rights referred to in Article 46.1 of the American Convention is based on the need to protect victims from the arbitrary exercise of government power. 7 Consequently, exhaustion of internal judicial remedies cannot mean simply going through the motions of formal legal procedures; the reasonable prospect of obtaining the desired remedy must be analyzed in each case. 8 34. The State argued that the petition is inadmissible because the petitioners have had available to them internal remedies that they failed to use. In particular, the State pointed out that the petitioners (i) did not appeal the final dismissal of September 27, 1993, in the criminal proceedings; and (ii) after the Supreme Court ruling of September 26, 2000, which raised the possibility of setting aside the application of the General Amnesty Law when the judge believed it should not apply, the petitioners filed no appeal along those lines. 35. The Commission notes, first of all, that this case deals with the alleged responsibility of members of the Salvadoran Army for the mass execution of civilians during an internal conflict in El Salvador. The Commission has said before that the time frame under consideration was marked by systematic violations of human rights and impunity, facilitated in part by the ineffectiveness of the Salvadoran judicial system. In light of the particular circumstances of the case and the aforesaid context, the Commission reiterates that when the alleged events took place it was not possible or necessary to file any complaint, as the situation came under the exception on exhaustion of internal remedies established in Article 46.c of the American Convention. 9 36. As to the alleged appeal possibility, the Commission reiterates its view that judicial dismissals issued on the basis of the General Amnesty Law effectively dispose of the case within the internal jurisdiction. Consequently, such dismissals exhaust the possibility of 6 I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodriguez Case, cited, paragraphs 62-66; I/A Court H.R., Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales Case, Preliminary Objections. Judgment of March 15, 1989, paras. 86-90; Godínez Cruz Case, Judgment of January 20, 1989, paras. 65-69. 7 I/A Court H.R., Godínez Cruz Case. Judgment of June 26, 1987, para. 95. 8 I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case, cited, paragraph 72; Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales Case, cited, paragraph 97; I/A Court H.R., Godínez Cruz Case, cited, para. 75. 9 IACHR, Report No. 11/05 (Admissibility), Petition 708/03, Gregoria Herminia, Serapio Cristián and Julia Inés Contreras (El Salvador), February 23, 2005, para. 25. 6