5 when the authorities in the administration of justice failed to act on the case. She contends that the pace of a case depended on how quickly the public prosecutor’s office and the judicial authorities acted to conduct the case; she observed that because “there was no provision in the law that would require the public prosecutor’s office to bring a criminal case and prosecute it,” the alleged victim’s right to effective judicial protection had been violated. 9 19. Finally, she alleges that with this new procedural system, the Public Prosecutor’s Office “only had to criminally prosecute” certain cases, which is why she alleges that the equal protection of the law for the case involving the injuries to her daughter had been denied. B. The State 20. In response to the petitioner’s claims, the State contends that the petition must be declared inadmissible. However, it does not offer any concrete arguments to support its position. 21. In its original brief, the State gave an account of the actions taken by the domestic court authorities. It observed that on January 18, 1999, domestic proceedings got underway in the complaint filed by Mrs. Balbina Rodríguez, for the crime of “criminal negligence resulting in grave personal injury.” The proceedings began under the Code of Criminal Prosecution then in force but which was later supplanted by the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure. It observed that on July 2, 2005, the Eighth and Thirty-Eighth prosecution units of the Public Prosecutor’s Office for the Metropolitan Caracas Judicial Circuit issued the complaint against Drs. Grover Castellón Céspedes, Marlene Ramírez Mujica, Manuel Alfredo Alvarado and Alexis Manuel Lamus, for the crime of “criminal negligence resulting in grievous personal injury” and that the case was brought within the “time period prescribed by law” for the Public Prosecutor’s Office to issue its closing statement wrapping up the preliminary phase of the proceedings. 22. It later reported that on September 21, 2006, those prosecutors with the Public Prosecutor’s Office had requested that the case against Dr Julio César Zumeta and Dr. Alexis Manuel Lamus be dropped since criminal prosecution “was obviously time-barred.” They requested that the case against Dr. Grover Castellón Céspedes, Marlene Ramírez Mujica and Manuel Alfredo Alvarado be dropped inasmuch as they could not be accused of a punishable offense. It stated that the competent authority had not yet issued its decision on the request that the case be dismissed. III. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. The Commission’s competence ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis and ratione loci 23. Under Article 44 of the American Convention the petitioner is entitled, in principle, to lodge a petition with the Commission. The alleged victim named in the petition is an individual whose rights under the American Convention the Venezuelan State undertook to respect and ensure. As for the State, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has been a State party to the American Convention since September 8, 1977, the date on which it deposited its instrument of ratification. Therefore, the Commission has competence ratione personae and ratione temporis to examine the petition. 24. The IACHR has competence ratione loci and ratione materiae to examine the petition inasmuch as it alleges violations of human rights established in the American Convention, said to 9 The petitioner observes that she filed a challenge seeking partial nullification of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure with the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court. It was declared inadmissible on January 14, 2004.