At the international level, what is important to determine is whether a law violates the international obligations assumed by the State by virtue of a treaty. This the Commission can and should do upon examining the communications and petitions submitted to it concerning violations of human rights and freedoms protected by the Convention.2 36. The second issue in the analysis of the Commission’s competence ratione materiae to deal with this case refers to the petitioner’s allegations that there were masterminds behind the La Cantuta massacre who were never investigated. In this regard, the petitioner states that although General Rodolfo Robles Espinoza and other members of the army reported the conceptual involvement of Commander General of the Army Nicolás de Bari Hermoza, presidential advisor Capt. Vladimiro Montesinos (ret.), and other high-ranking soldiers in the La Cantuta killings, they were never investigated or questioned by the military courts, much less tried or convicted. The petitioner adds that Amnesty Laws Nos. 26479 and 26492 prevent an investigation being opened into the possible masterminds behind the massacre. 37. In this regard, the Commission notes that Article 1 of the American Convention enshrines the duty of states parties to respect the rights and freedoms contained in the Convention with respect to all persons under their jurisdiction, and to ensure their free and full exercise of those same rights and freedoms. Consequent to this obligation of ensuring free and full exercise of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention, states parties are obliged to "prevent, investigate, and punish any violation of the rights recognized by the Convention and, moreover, if possible attempt to restore the right violated and provide compensation as warranted for damages resulting from the violation."3 38. Of course, the obligation of investigating and punishing all violations of the rights set forth in the Convention requires the State to punish all those responsible for a human rights violation, including both its direct perpetrators and the masterminds behind it. Now, the petitioner’s simple allegation that there were masterminds behind the La Cantuta massacre who were not investigated cannot, for the Commission, constitute sufficient proof of that circumstance, particularly considering the great political responsibility inherent in, for example, the simple act of summoning a person to give a statement as one of the masterminds. Thus, the chief evidence in the file supporting the petitioner’s allegations regarding the masterminds are the declarations made by Gen. Rodolfo Robles Espinoza, which in themselves are not enough, at this stage in the proceedings, for the Commission to reach any conclusions regarding the potential masterminds behind the La Cantuta slayings. At the same time, the rank held by Gen. Robles Espinoza, the fact that his declarations were made in May 1993, before the victims’ bodies were found in July of that year, and the fact that several of the individuals he accused in 1993 as the perpetrators of the La Cantuta massacre were later convicted, in 1994, for committing those crimes, lend enough credibility to his declarations for the Commission nor to declare itselfprima facie incompetent to address this specific point. For the reasons given above, the Commission decides to postpone, until the in-depth report, its considerations regarding its competence ratione materiae to hear allegations regarding the possible masterminding of behind the La Cantuta massacre. 39. With regard to competence ratione personae, the Commission notes that the petitioner accuses the Peruvian State of violations of human rights enshrined in the American Convention. Since Peru ratified that Convention on July 28, 1978, the Commission has competence ratione personae to hear this petition in accordance with the express provisions of Article 33 of the Convention. As regards the petitioner, the Commission notes that APRODEH (Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos) is a legally recognized nongovernmental organization within Peru which, pursuant to Article 44 of the Convention, has the power to submit complaints to the Commission. Consequently, and with reference to the petitioner, the Commission is also competent ratione personae to deal with this petition. 40. With regard to its competence ratione temporis, the Commission notes that the incidents with which the Peruvian State is charged occurred in 1992 and later years; that is, after Peru’s 2 Inter-Am.Ct.H.R., Certain Attributes of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Arts. 41, 42, 44, 46, 47, 50, and 51 of the American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-13 of 16 July 1993, Ser. A, Nº 13, paragraph 30. 3 Inter-Am.Ct.H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Judgment of July 29, 1988, Ser.C, Nº 4, paragraph 166. 7