IV. ANALYSIS ON ADMISSIBILITY A. The Commission’s competence ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione temporis and ratione materiae 29. The petitioners are entitled to lodge complaints with the IACHR under Article 44 of the American Convention2 and, as concerns the presumed victims, i.e. the Xakmok Kásek Community and its members, the State of Paraguay has undertaken to respect and ensure the rights enshrined in the Convention. With respect to the State, the Commission observes that Paraguay is a State Party to the American Convention, having ratified it on August 24, 1989. Therefore, the Commission has competence ratione personae to examine the complaint. 30. The Commission has competence ratione loci to hear the petition inasmuch as the alleged violations of the rights protected under the American Convention have occurred within the territory of a State Party to the Convention. 31. The Commission has competence ratione temporis to address the facts alleged in the petition since they took place when the State of Paraguay was bound to respect and ensure the rights established in the Convention.3 32. Finally, the Commission has competence ratione materiae because the petition alleges violation of rights protected under the American Convention. B. Other admissibility requirements 1. Exhaustion of remedies under domestic law 33. Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention, concerning admission of a petition, requires that remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. Article 46(2)(a) provides that the rule requiring exhaustion of domestic remedies will 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 its rights has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law or has been prevented from exhausting them, and c) there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. 34. With respect to the recovery of the ancestral lands of the Indigenous Community--the main grounds for the petition--it is the Commission’s understanding that two avenues of recourse exist in Paraguay, one through the INDI-IBR and the other via the National Congress. The petitioners have pursued both avenues. 35. Indeed, the record shows that in 1990 the procedures outlined in the domestic legislation were undertaken with the respective administrative body, i.e., INDI-IBR, with a view to reclaiming the traditional habitat of the Community. To date, no definitive solution has been reached concerning the petition. Similarly, the petitioners’ attempt to resolve the matter through the Senate of Paraguay was also unsuccessful because successive pieces of draft legislation to expropriate the property were rejected by the Senate, most recently through a resolution adopted on November 16, 2000. Consequently, 12 years after having initiated the relevant procedures, the Xakmok Kásek Indigenous Community has yet to reclaim its lands. 36. In its arguments on admissibility, the State said that the petitioners had not exhausted those two domestic remedies and that the present petition was therefore inadmissible. The Commission notes in this connection that the State, alleging failure to exhaust remedies, is 2 The petitioners provided censuses of the Xakmok Kásek Community for the years 1995 and 1998. 3 Paraguay ratified the American Convention of Human Rights on August 24, 1989. 5