of Mrs. Villaseñor's family should be considered victims. it explained that " in no way is it pointed out, expressed, or shown how, directly or indirectly, the other persons regard themselves as affected." 21. As to the admissibility of the petition, the State argued that domestic remedies had not been exhausted since the investigations into the threats received were still ongoing. The Commission takes note of the fact that the State did not present information or documentation regarding the status of the investigations nor the steps undertaken in connection with those investigations. 22. As regards the merits, the State acknowledged Mrs. Villaseñor's career as a public servant. It also acknowledged that she had received threats against her, which may have had to do with the cases she had heard as a judge. However, it maintained that the State was not responsible because the threats were attributed to non-State actors. 23. It pointed out that once Mrs. Villaseñor had lodged a complaint regarding those fact internally -- and as requested by the Commission when it granted precautionary measures in her favor -- the State had taken the necessary steps to provide her with protection. The State pointed out that between August 1994 and 1997, Mrs. Villaseñor had had four National Civilian Police officers for her personal security. The State added that two of them had been withdrawn as of 1997. 24. The State maintained that only in 2013, after almost 19 years of having provided protection measures on Mrs. Villaseñor's behalf, it had withdrawn that protection because the Inter-American Commission decided to suspend precautionary measures on behalf of the alleged victim. The State pointed out that, consequently, it had complied with its function of protecting Mrs. Villaseñor. 25. In addition, the State maintained that when it withdrew the protection measures n Mrs. Villaseñor's behalf, she "was engaged in other professional activities, different from those she had been carrying out when her circumstances were regarded as extremely urgent and serious." It stated that, nevertheless, a risk assessment was conducted, in which it was determined that the alleged victim was at medium risk because "there was no record of acts endangering her life and bodily integrity." The State added that Mrs. Villaseñor had not provided new information regarding facts that violated her rights. It pointed out that, on the contrary, her arguments were based on the same facts that gave rise to the precautionary measure. IV. ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. The Commission’s competence ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione temporis and ratione materiae 26. The petitioners have standing under Article 44 of the American Convention to lodge petitions. In addition, María Eugenia Villaseñor and her family were individuals under the jurisdiction of the State of Guatemala at the time of the facts adduced. Therefore, the Commission has ratione personae competence to examine the petition. The Commission is competent ratione loci to take cognizance of the petition, insofar as it alleges violations of the American Convention that are said to have taken place in the territory of a state party to that treaty. 27. Similarly, the IACHR has ratione materiae competence because the petition refers to alleged violations of the American Convention. The Commission is also competent ratione temporis to examine the claim as Guatemala has been a state party to the American Convention since May 25, 1978, when it deposited its instrument of ratification. Therefore, the obligation of the State to respect and ensure the rights recognized in the American Convention was in force at the time that the alleged facts are said to have occurred. 28. Pursuant to Article 19.6 of the Protocol of San Salvador, the Commission is competent to examine pleadings regarding alleged violations of rights established in Articles 8 and 13. Accordingly, the 4