because it was proven by means of the ballistics examination that the bullets found in the body of Huacón came from his weapon. 17. A serious presumption of the responsibility of the police officer Carlos Mosquera Cachaguay, Sgt. Pedro Espinoza Ramírez and the guard Bolívar Ramirez, for the death of Mercedes Salazar, arises since they shot at the car while in hot pursuit. In addition, a bullet from José Carbo’s weapon was found in the chest of the dead woman. In spite of the fact that an investigation was conducted, the only person who faces trial is José Carbo, who has been a fugitive since the day of the crime. The criminal proceedings cannot be finalized as long as Mr. José Carbo Bajaña is a fugitive. Since almost all the other police officers either had the charges against them dismissed or where never charged, they could still be implicated, but this would depend upon the criteria employed by the judges of the special police court. According to the petitioners, this is a trick since the internal remedies, they argue, will not end until the statute of limitations for the crime has expired. B. Position of the State 18. The State’s response was dated May 21, 2003 and was signed by Attorney General Dr. José Maria Borja Gallegos. The communication was transmitted to the Commission on June 17, 2003 and received on June 19, 2003. 19. The State requested the Commission to declare the petition inadmissible and to file the case, arguing that the petitioners had failed to exhaust available domestic remedies. Article 46 of the American Convention specifies that, in order for a case to be admitted, "remedies under domestic law [must] have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law." This requirement exists to ensure the State concerned the opportunity to resolve disputes within its own legal framework. 20. The State reports that the petitioners never filed a complaint informing the authorities of the events that had transpired which impeded the State from complying with its obligations to prevent, investigate and sanction the persons responsible for the violations that allegedly occurred. The State submits that the Commission should wait until the relatives file a complaint with the State authorities or against the individual or individuals whom they consider responsible for the assassination of the persons who were allegedly killed, so that the appropriate judicial proceedings may be carried out. From the information presented to the State it cannot be deduced that any legal actions were undertaken before any tribunals or competent Ecuadorian authorities. Consequently, the State submits that available domestic remedies not only were not exhausted but they were never even instituted. 21. In summary, throughout its presentation, the State indicated that the petition should be declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. Furthermore, the State argued that the petitioners did not even attempt to exhaust their domestic remedies and therefore, the State cannot be held responsible for events that it was not even aware of. IV. ANALYSIS A. Competence of the Commission Ratione Personae, Ratione Loci, and Ratione Temporis 22. The petitioners are entitled, under Article 44 of the American Convention, to lodge complaints with the Commission. The petition names the alleged victims as being Mr. Walter Huacón and Mercedes Salazar, both of whom are “persons” under the terms of Article 1(2) of the American Convention. The 4