are designed to penalize these kinds of criminal behavior. By the same token, the State argues that in spite of the allegations that the alleged victim had been threatened before his murder, there is no record of statements being given to the state authorities and therefore the State had no means to protect his life and physical safety because it had not been informed of the threats to the life of the alleged victim. 18. Furthermore, the State points out that the accusations relating to the violation of judicial rights would be inadmissible because the delay in the proceedings came about through circumstances beyond the state’s control, such as the disappearance of the accused and the impossibility of violating the basic procedural guarantees of the accused (the right of all parties to be heard - contradictorio, broad defense, and prescription). IV. A. ANALYSIS Competence of the Commission ratione personae, ratione temporis, ratione materiae, and ratione loci 19. In accordance with Article 44 of the American Convention and 23 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission, the petitioners, as legally recognized nongovernmental entities are empowered to lodge petitions before the IACHR concerning alleged violations of the American Convention. With regard to the State, the Commission observes that Brazil, as a member state of the Organization of American States, 4 has obligations that are enshrined in the American Declaration; that it is also a State Party to the American Convention, having ratified it on September 25, 1992. The Commission finds that the petition refers to the alleged victim as Gabriel Sales Pimenta, an individual whose rights -- as established in the American Declaration and the American Convention -- Brazil is committed to respect and protect. Therefore, the Commission has competence ratione personae to examine the petition. 20. With regard to competence ratione temporis, the Commission is competent to examine possible violations of human rights protected by the Declaration and by the Convention in accordance with Articles 1.2.b and 20 of its Statute. The fact that Brazil ratified the Convention on September 25, 1992, does not exempt it from its duty to respect human rights prior to that ratification since the aforementioned rights are protected by the American Declaration, which constitutes a source of obligation under international law. 5 In this respect, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Court”, “the Inter-American Court”, or “the Tribunal”) explicitly recognized the binding nature of the American Declaration by stating that “Articles 1(2)(b) and 20 of the Commission’s Statute define the competence of that body with respect to the human rights enunciated in the Declaration, with the result that to this extent the American Declaration is for these States a source of international obligations related to the Charter of the Organization.” 6 4 Brazil is a founding member of the Organization of American States, signed the OAS Charter in 1948 and deposited its instrument of ratification in 1950. 5 IACHR, Report No. 19/98, Case 11,516, Ovelário Tames, Brazil, February 21, 1998, paragraph 15; Report No. 33/01, Case 11,552, Guerilla de Araguaia, Jukoa Gomes Lund et al., Brazil, March 6, 2001, paragraph 38; Report No 17/98, Cases 11,407 Galrival Xavier Coutrim, 11,406, Celso Bonfim de Lima, 11,416, Marcos Almeida Ferreira, 11,413, Delton Gomes da Mota, 11,417, Marcos de Assis Ruben, 11,412, Wanderley Galati, 11,414, Ozeas Antonia dos Santos, 11,415, Carlos Eduardo Gomes Ribeiro, 11,286, Aluísio Cavalcanti Júnior and Cláudio Aparecido de Moraes, Brazil, February 21, 1998, paragraph 163. 6 Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Interpretation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man within the framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-10/89, dated July 14, 1989, Series A, paragraph 45.