21. On March 10, Neptune collapses due to poor health conditions and is taken to a military hospital run by MINUSTAH. 22. On April 20, 2005, the date upon which the petition was sent, Neptune was still receiving treatment at the UN hospital. He was not brought before a judge to determine the legality of his arrest and detention or formally charged for the crime for which he was accused. B. The State 23. The State has not presented any response to the facts alleged by the petitioners in his petition, nor has it questioned the admissibility of the petition under consideration. IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. Preliminary Considerations 24. The IACHR notes that the State at no time has responded to the petitioners’ allegations or questioned the petition’s admissibility as it has done for several cases from Haiti in the past. 2 The IACHR recalls that Haiti is responsible for the International obligations it assumed under the terms of the American Convention of Human Rights. Article 48(1)(a) of the Convention is of particular relevance in that it establishes procedures to be followed when a petition or communication is referred to the Commission. The IACHR shall “request information from the government of the state indicated as responsible for the alleged violations” and “(t)his information shall be submitted within a reasonable period..” The provisions of Article 48(1)(e) stipulate that the Commission “may request that states concerned to furnish any pertinent information.” This obliges State parties to the Convention to provide the Commission with such information as it may require to analyze individual petitions. 25. The IACHR stresses the importance it accords to the information it requests as it provides a basis for the Commission’s decisions on submitted petitions. Indeed, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has affirmed that cooperation of the States represents a fundamental obligation within the international procedural framework established by the Inter-American System: In contrast to domestic criminal law, in proceedings to determine human rights violations the State cannot rely on the defense that the compliant has failed to present evidence when it cannot be obtained without the State’s cooperation. The State controls the means to verify acts occurring within its territory. Although the Commission has investigatory powers, it cannot exercise them within a States jurisdiction unless 3 it has the cooperation of that State. 26. The Commission and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights have also stated that “the silence of the defendant or elusive or ambiguous answers on its part may be interpreted as an acknowledgment of the truth of the allegations, so long the contrary is not indicated by the record or is not compelled as a matter of law”. 4 Bearing this in mind, the Commission reminds the State of Haiti of its obligation to cooperate with the various agencies of the Inter-American system of human rights in order to facilitate their efforts to protect individual rights. B. Competence of the Commission ratione personæ, ratione loci, ratione temporis and ratione materiæ 2 IACHR, Report N° 129/01, Case 12.389, Haiti. paras. 11 and foll. IACHR, Report N° 79/03, Case P139/02, Haiti, paras. 10 and follow 3 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Judgment of July 29, 1988, Series C, N°4, §135 and 136. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report N° 28/96, Case N° 11.297, Juan Hernández (Guatemala), October 16, 1996, §43 4 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Judgment of July 29, 1988, Series C, N°4, §138. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report N° 28/96, Case N° 11.297, Juan Hernández (Guatemala), October 16, 1996, §45 3