American Commission cannot pronounce on a case that has already been disposed of in accordance with its system of laws. 24. In relation to the alleged failure to provide compensation to the victims and their families, the State said that talks were held with the petitioners. It said that in spite of the efforts made, no agreement was reached on the amounts to be paid in compensation to the next of kin of those who died and to the survivors. IV. ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. The Commission’s competence ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione temporis, and ratione materiae 25. The petitioners have standing under Article 44 of the American Convention to lodge petitions. In addition, the alleged victims are individuals who were 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 ratified the American Convention on May 25, 1978. 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. B. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 26. 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. 27. As the Commission has pointed out, to analyze compliance with the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies, the Commission must determine what was the appropriate remedy to exhaust under the circumstances, meaning the remedy best suited to resolving the legal infringement. Furthermore, the precedents established by the Commission indicate that in cases of alleged extrajudicial executions, a criminal investigation and proceeding in the regular courts is the suitable recourse to clarify the facts, try those responsible, and establish appropriate criminal penalties, in addition to providing for other forms of reparation.1 28. The Commission notes that after the petition was lodged there were developments in the proceedings initiated at the domestic level in connection with the incident. Thus, the investigations were opened in the military criminal jurisdiction the day after the events occurred and were transferred to the regular criminal courts towards the end of January 1996. In addition, the IACHR takes note of the fact that on July 8, 2004, the Sentencing Court for Criminal Matters, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes of Alta Verapaz Department handed down a judgment convicting 14 members of the armed forces for the crimes of extrajudicial execution and grievous bodily harm. On September 23, 2005, the Supreme Court declared that judgment final. The IACHR notes that there is no disagreement between the parties over the conclusion of the criminal proceeding. 1 IACHR, Report No. 51/08, Petition 299-07, Admissibility, Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto et al., Venezuela, July 24, 2008; and Report No. 23/07, Petition 435-2006, Admissibility, Eduardo José Landaeta Mejías et al., Venezuela, March 9, 2007. 4