29. Under Article 44 of the American Convention, the petitioners are authorized to lodge petitions with the Commission. The alleged victims named in the petition are natural persons whose Convention-protected rights the Colombian State undertook to respect and guarantee. As for the State, Colombia has been a State party to the American Convention since July 31, 1973, the date on which it deposited its instrument of ratification. The Commission is, therefore, competent ratione personae to examine the petition. 30. The Commission is also competent ratione loci to examine the petition, because it alleges violations of rights protected by the American Convention, said to have occurred within the territory of Colombia, a State party to the Convention. The Commission is competent ratione temporis inasmuch as the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected under the American Convention became binding upon the State in July 1973. Therefore, as of the date on which the facts alleged in the petition were said to have occurred the obligation to respect and guarantee those rights was already in force for the State. B. Admissibility requirements 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies and deadline for lodging the petition 31. Under Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention, in order for petitions or claims alleging violation of the American Convention to be admissible, the remedies under domestic law must have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. 32. Article 46(2) of the Convention states that the rule requiring exhaustion of domestic remedies shall not apply 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; or c) there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. As the Inter-American Court has written, whenever a State alleges a petitioner’s failure to exhaust domestic remedies, it must show that the remedies that have not been exhausted are “adequate,” in other words, that the function of those remedies within the domestic legal system is suitable to address an infringement of a legal right.22 33. In the instant case, the State is alleging that the remedies under domestic law have not been pursued and exhausted in accordance with Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention, since the criminal and disciplinary proceedings instituted in connection with the facts alleged in the complaint are still pending. It argues that the exception allowed under Article 46(2)(c) of the Convention does not apply. The petitioners, for their part, are invoking the exception allowed under Article 46(2)(c) by virtue of the unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment in the domestic courts. 34. The Commission observes that on the question of the reasonableness of the time that a case takes, the Inter-American Court has established that the right to access to justice is not served merely by conducting domestic proceedings; for victims and their next of kin the right to justice also means that within a reasonable period, every measure necessary will be taken to establish the truth of what happened and to punish those responsible. 23 22 I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Judgment of July 29,1988. Series C No. 4, para. 64. 23 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Ituango Massacre. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 289;Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 171; Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 216; Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, para. 66, and Case of the 19 Merchants. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 188. 6