1977, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child on September 13, 1990. The Commission therefore has ratione personae competence to examine the petition. In addition, the Commission has ratione temporis competence because the American Convention was in force for the State on the date the facts alleged in the petition were said to have occurred. 51. The Commission has ratione loci competence because the violations allegedly occurred in the territory of a State party to that treaty. Finally, the Commission has ratione materiae competence, because the petition alleges violations of rights protected in the framework of the American Convention. 2. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 52. Article 46.1.a of the American Convention stipulates as a requirement for admission of a petition alleging violations of the Convention “that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law.” 53. Article 46.2 of the Convention provides that the requirement for exhaustion of domestic remedies shall not be applicable 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. 54. According to the Rules of Procedure of the Commission and the Inter-American Court, it is up to the State to demonstrate that the remedies under domestic law that have not been exhausted are “adequate” for correcting the alleged violation, in other words, domestic remedies are those which are suitable to address an infringement of a legal right.49 55. In the instant case the State argues that the petition does not satisfy the requirement for prior exhaustion of domestic remedies set forth in Article 46.1.a of the Convention because there are pending investigations. On the other hand, the petitioners argue that authorities have failed to investigate the facts in a timely and effective manner, which would lead to application of the exception established in Article 46.2.c, because there has been an unwarranted delay in the proceeding. 56. In view of the positions of the parties and circumstances of this case, the Commission also considers it germane to determine the petition’s purpose. It deals specifically with the facts related to the extrajudicial executions of Benito Antonio Barrios and Rigoberto Barrios, the alleged acts of harassment and threats against members of the Barrios family, the subsequent displacement of the Barrios family, and aspects concerning the investigations into the circumstances surrounding said events. 57. The Commission’s jurisprudence recognizes that in crimes of public action the State has an obligation to set the criminal law system into motion and to process the matter until the end50 and that in these cases it is the appropriate entity for clarification of the facts, prosecution of 49 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez. Judgment of July 29, 1988, para. 64. 50 Report Nº 52/97, Case 11.218, Arges Sequeira Mangas, Annual Report of the IACHR 1997, paras. 96 and 97. See also Report N° 55/97, para. 392. Report N° 62/00, Case 11.727, Hernando Osorio Correa, Annual Report of the IACHR 2000, para. 24. 10