11. Based on the foregoing, the petitioners allege that the State violated, to the detriment of the alleged victim, the rights embodied in Articles 4, 8, 24 and 25 of the American Convention in agreement with Article 1.1 of the same treaty. They also argue that under the Statute of Rome of the International Criminal Court, the alleged violations may tend to establish a crime against humanity due to the context in which these took place. In this regard, they say that during the coup, there were 23 alleged violent deaths among the members of the LGBTI community, “which is the highest frequency rate of murders of transsexuals and homosexuals in a semester in Honduras”. As a result, they allege that these may be “systematic and generalized conducts, committed with particular intensity after the seizure of power”. B. Position of the State 12. According to the State, the petition must be declared inadmissible in view that the State complied with its duty to investigate concerning the death of Vicky Hernández Castillo, making significant efforts to search the truth. It believes, however, that the procedure has been extended and delayed due to the complexity of the case, as the facts are described as “extremely harmful and, therefore, demand more severe punishment”. 13. In particular, the State describes several investigation procedures that it carried out to identify the victimizers. It adds that in the preliminary investigation, Rosa Hernández, mother of the alleged victim, bore witness; that she declared that on June 27, 2009, “the victim arrived in the morning and asked her 100 lempiras, and after that she never saw him again”; and that later, in her witness statement to the National Office of Criminal Investigation (hereinafter “DNIC”), she declared that “her son had told her that there was another travesty, whose name she does not remember, who had robbed him and who threatened to kill him if he saw him again”. The State argues that later many several calls were made to a friend of the victim, a religious ministry, and a group from a neighborhood in the city; but that the telephone lines were out of service, which did not allow finding out their addresses so that they bore witness. 14. The State stresses that the lack of witnesses at the place of the events has hindered the clarification of the facts and the identification of the persons responsible for the death of the alleged victim, in spite of which the investigation continues. In this regard, it alleges that it has duly complied with its duty of protection and safeguard of human rights in favor of Vicky Hernández Castillo, as it carried out several investigation procedures aimed at searching the truth, in conformity with all the requirements of the substantive, and criminal procedural laws. In particular, as to the autopsy report, the State says that by December 2015, the report had been included in the case file. 15. Concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the State argues that the domestic law has effective, adequate and necessary remedies to solve the case. In addition, it states that the action of criminal prosecution has not prescribed, and that therefore, it is possible to protect the rights of the victim by means of domestic remedies. 16. In conclusion, the State argues that given that domestic remedies have not been exhausted, the petition is inadmissible, and requests the IACHR so declare. IV. ANALYSIS ON COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence 17. Under Article 23 of the IACHR’s Rules and Article 44 of the American Convention, the petitioner is entitled to lodge complaints with the Commission. In the petition, the alleged victim is an individual person whose rights are protected under the American Convention. The State of Honduras agreed to respect and ensure the rights embodied in said Convention. As to the State, the Commission declares that Honduras is a State Party to the Convention since September 8, 1977, when it deposited the instrument of ratification. As a result, the Commission is competent ratione personae to examine the petition. Moreover, the State is party to the Convention of Belém do Pará since July 12, 1995; therefore, the Commission is competent 3