51. Concerning the unwarranted delay alleged by the petitioners, the State argues that the latter have not exhausted the domestic remedies provided in Venezuela’s Organic Code of Criminal Procedure.4 The State observed that if indeed the delay was unwarranted, the petitioners did not take legal action in the courts of the Republic to have them order the public prosecutors’ offices to conduct the investigations and the deadlines by which each specific case must be investigated. Lastly, the State alleges that the petitioners had recourse to special legal actions such as constitutional amparo. The State did not respond to the request for specific information made by the IACHR on October 15, 2003. IV. ANALYSIS A. Competence ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis andratione loci of the Commission 52. Under Article 44 of the American Convention, the petitioners are entitled to submit petitions to the IACHR. The petition claims that the alleged victim is an individual, in whose regard Venezuela made a commitment to respect and guarantee the rights established in the American Convention. In that connection, the Commission notes that the original submission by the petitioners gave the following as alleged victims: Luisiana Ríos; Luis Augusto Contreras Alvarado; Eduardo Sapene Granier; Javier García; Isnardo Bravo; David Pérez Hansen; Wilmer Marcano; Winston Gutiérrez and Isabel Mavarez. 53. Similarly, after the complaint was lodged with the IACHR, new and similar acts were perpetrated against RCTV employees Erika Paz, Samuel Sotomayor, Anahís Cruz, Herbigio Henriquez, Armando Amaya, Antonio José Monroy, Laura Castellanos, Argenis Uribe, Pedro Nikken, Noé Pernía and Carlos Colmenares. This caused the Commission and, with respect to some of the individuals, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, to issue precautionary and provisional measures, respectively (see paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 above). Given the similarity of the supervening acts and their relationship to the current petition and the petition of the persons protected by the precautionary and provisional measures, the Commission will decide whether to include Erika Paz, Samuel Sotomayor, Anahís Cruz, Herbigio Henríquez, Armando Amaya, Antonio José Monroy, Laura Castellanos, Argenis Uribe, Pedro Nikken, Noé Pernía and Carlos Colmenares as alleged victims in its report on the merits, after the two parties have had the opportunity to present their arguments in accordance with Article 38 and other relevant articles of the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR. 54. The State of Venezuela is a party to the American Convention. The petitioners report actions and omissions directly imputable to the State. The Commission estimates that it has competence ratione personae in this respect. The petitioners also allege that the acts of the “Bolivarian Circles” can be directly imputed to the State. The IACHR will determine in its report on the merits what, if any, responsibility the State may have for the action of such groups. 55. The Commission has competence ratione materiae because the petition makes reference to reports of violations of human rights protected by the American Convention in Articles 1(1), 2, 5, 8, 13 and 25, to the detriment of Luisiana Ríos; Luis Augusto Contreras Alvarado; Eduardo Sapene Granier; Javier García; Isnardo Bravo; David Pérez Hansen; Wilmer Marcano; Winston Gutiérrez and Isabel Mavarez. 56. The Commission has competence ratione temporis, given that the reported facts occurred when the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights established by the Convention was already in force for the State, which ratified the Convention on August 9, 1977. 57. The Commission has competence ratione loci, because the alleged acts took place in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, a country that has ratified the American Convention. 4 The State’s response indicated that the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure envisages a legal mechanism whereby the victim has recourse to the Criminal Oversight Judge of First Instance to set a deadline for the Attorney General’s Office to complete the investigation, with a penalty for noncompliance. 10