7 of America so they would appear before the Court that heard the case, by November 15, 2001 at the latest, and make the Ramírez brothers available to this Court in order to have contact with their biological parents. 35. The State indicated that on July 1, 2002, the Court that heard the case notified Mr. Gustavo Amílcar Tobar Fajardo of the order to affirm whether he would be willing to pay the expenses that would be incurred in the summons to both families residing in the United States of America, and noted that the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Nation and the private institution “Asociación los Niños de Guatemala” were also notified. The State noted that Mr. Gustavo Amílcar Tobar submitted a brief on August 2, 2002, in which he stated his willingness to defray the expenses of paying official translators and similar services, reiterating that the adoptive parents of the aforementioned minors be required to come to Guatemala and appear before the Court in order to decide on the case in the most appropriate way possible. Nevertheless, the State alleged that his response was vague about the expenses that would be incurred specifically with regard to the letters rogatory summoning the children’s adoptive parents. 36. The State pointed out that the Trial Judge for Childhood, Adolescence and Adolescents in Conflict with the Law of the Department of Chimaltenango, issued an order on August 20, 2002, summoning Mr. Gustavo Amílcar Tobar Fajardo to a hearing to take place on September 10, 2002, in relation to the procedure to go forward before the Ministry of Foreign Relations. This decision was notified on August 23, 2002. The State alleged that Mr. Tobar did not appear a said hearing. 37. The State alleged that the proceedings were then transferred to the Juvenile Court of First Instance of the Department of Chimaltenango, where, on September 19, 2002, the proceeding was ordered to be closed because the matter of the adoption of the children, Osmín Ricardo Tobar Ramírez and Jeffrey Rainieri Arias Ramírez, had been decided. 38. The State argued that, with regard to the petitioner’s assertion that the Court should have of its own initiative proceeded with the steps that were necessary, in keeping with the Inter-American Convention on Letters Rogatory and Its Additional Protocol and Article 35 of the Judicial Branch Act, in order to carry out said procedure, this is not pertinent given that the provision cited refers to foreign legal evidence in Guatemala. As for the petitioner’s assertion that Mr. Tobar was never informed about the cost of the procedure, the State has repeated that the petitioner failed to appear for the hearing ordered by the Court. 39. The State affirmed that there is no failure to comply with the obligation to adopt provisions under domestic law in keeping with the American Convention and described a series of measures adopted to implement international provisions on international adoptions and prevent trafficking of children. It also listed bills, as well as legislative and administrative measures, adopted by Guatemala. 40. Finally, the State did not present specific pleas or arguments about the admissibility requirements provided for under Article 46(1) of the American Convention. The State indicated that “It informs the Illustrious Commission […] that it does not object to the admissibility of the petition filed. Given that the majority of initiatives and actions implemented were adopted subsequent to the facts reported by the petitioners, the State considers that it is necessary to continue gathering information that makes it possible to determine whether there was a violation of the fundamental rights of the minors and their parents. Thus, without prejudice to the position that the State may have with regard to the merits of the case, it does not object to the admissibility thereof.” IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence of the Commission ratione personæ, ratione loci, ratione temporis and ratione materiæ 41. The petitioners are empowered, in principle, by Article 44 of the American Convention to submit petitions to the Commission. The petition points to individual persons as alleged victims, with respect to whom the State of Guatemala undertook a commitment to respect and ensure the rights enshrined in the American