25. The Commission is competent ratione materiae because the petition alleges violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. The Commission is also competent ratione temporis, because the facts alleged in the petition occurred when the obligation to respect and ensure rights recognized in the American Convention was already in force for the State, which ratified the Convention in September, 8, 1997. The Commission is competent ratione loci inasmuch as the alleged violations are said to have occurred within the territory of Honduras, which has ratified the American Convention. B. Other admissibility requirements to be met by the petition 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 26. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention provides that for a petition lodged with the Inter-American Commission to be admissible in accordance with Article 44 of the Convention, it is necessary that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance 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. The prior exhaustion rule applies when there are suitable and effective remedies actually available in the national system to repair the alleged violation. In that connection, Article 46(2) specifies that the rule does not apply when: a) the domestic legislation of the State concerned does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right in question; b) the alleged victim did not have access to the remedies under domestic law; and, c) there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under said remedies. As Article 31 of the IACHR Rules of Procedure provides, when the petitioner invokes one of these exceptions, it is up to the State concerned to demonstrate that the remedies under domestic law have not been exhausted, unless that is clearly evident from the record. 28. In the instant case, the State requests that the petition be declared inadmissible on the ground that domestic remedies have not been exhausted since investigations are ongoing into government officials, in order to ascertain if they bear responsibility for the fire at San Pedro Sula Prison. For their part, the petitioners argue that the investigation opened ex officio by the State to clarify the circumstances of the fire at San Pedro Sula Prison and to prosecute and punish those responsible has been unduly delayed, plagued with serious irregularities, and ineffective. In sum, they say that in the instant case the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies has been superseded because for the victims’ families the domestic judicial proceeding has proved ineffective in punishing those allegedly responsible in accordance to law, and because they have been denied a simple and prompt remedy that might enable them to know the truth about what happened and receive fair compensation for damages. 29. In this connection, the Commission considers that, as a general rule, "criminal investigations must be conducted promptly, in order to protect the interests of the victims and preserve the evidence."14 As the Inter-American Court has noted, while every criminal investigation must meet a series of legal requirements, the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies should not lead international action on behalf of the victims to come to a halt or to be delayed to the point of being rendered ineffective.15 30. To determine whether or not an investigation has been carried out “promptly”, the Commission must evaluate a series of factors such as the time elapsed since the offense was committed, if the investigation has progressed beyond the initial stages, the steps taken by the authorities, and the complexity of the case. 16 14 IACHR, Report 73/05, Petition 4534-02, Admissibility, Oscar Iván Tabares Toro, Colombia, October 13, 2005, para. 29, and IACHR, Report 62/00, Case 11.727, Hernando Osorio Correa, Colombia, October 3, 2000, para. 25. 15 I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 93. 16 IACHR, Report 23/07, Petition 435-2006 Admissibility, Eduardo José Landaeta Mejías et al., Venezuela, March 9, 2007, para. 44; IACHR, Report 7/07, Petition 474-03, Admissibility, Oswaldo José Colmenares Mújica et al., 6