to choose any of them … but Ms. Valentina Rosendo Cantú responded to Mr. Encarnación Sierra Morales that it had not been any of them …”8 20. The State adds that the investigation has not been finished largely due to “the lack of procedural interest on the part of the petitioner, who has not appeared for several proceedings, arguing that she was fearful of coming before military authorities, since it was soldiers who had raped her.”9 In this respect the State affirms that it is more than ready to offer the alleged victim the necessary conditions for her to appear before the prosecutor. 21. The State maintains that the Special Rapporteur on Torture, the Special Rapporteurship on Violence against Women, the Special Rapporteurship on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Institutions, and the World Organization Against Torture, all know of this case through information provided at their request, in which it has been noted that the investigation “has not been expedited for lack of procedural interest on the part of Ms. Valentina Rosendo Cantú.”10 In summary, given that domestic remedies have not been exhausted, the State considers the petition inadmissible. IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence of the Commission rationae personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis and ratione loci 22. The petitioners are authorized by Article 44 to lodge complaints before the IACHR. The petition identifies Valentina Rosendo Cantú as the alleged victim, an individual with respect to whom the Mexican State undertook to respect and guarantee the rights provided for by the American Convention. Regarding the State, Mexico is a party to the American Convention since March 24, 1981, when it deposited its instrument of ratification. For this reason, the Commission is competent rationae personae to examine the petition. 23. The Mexican State also ratified the Convention of Belém do Pará on November 12, 1998 and the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture on June 22, 1987. Therefore, the IACHR is competent rationae temporis to examine the merits of the arguments regarding alleged violations of the provisions of these international instruments. 24. The Commission is competent ratione loci and materiae to examine the petition, given that it alleges violations of human rights protected by the American Convention, the Convention of Belém do Pará and the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, within the territory of Mexico, a State Party to these treaties. The IACHR states that it is not competent to apply the Convention on the Rights of the Child, but that nevertheless said Convention can be used in the interpretation of the provisions of the American Convention, the Convention of Belém do Pará, and the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. B. Other requirements for admissibility of the petition 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 25. The Mexican State maintains that domestic remedies have not been exhausted and that consequently the case is still in the preliminary stages of a criminal proceeding. The petitioners contend that domestic remedies have been exhausted: they lodged an amparopetition, followed by a petition for review of the amparo, which were rejected, arguing that there was a lack of independence and impartiality in the military venue, and subsequently a second amparo petition using the same arguments. The petitioners also invoke the exception to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies because they consider that there is an unwarranted delay due to the intervention of an institution lacking jurisdiction, impartiality, and a proper disposition to act. 8 State’s response dated March 23, 2004, p. 5. State’s response dated March 23, 2004, p. 7. 10 State’s response dated March 23, 2004, p. 3. 9 5