September 26, 1997, the Court amended the investigation to include a Brazilian national and ordered his pretrial detention. 20. The State explained that on April 8, 1998, the criminal investigation was once again amended to include a Paraguayan citizen as one of the masterminds of the crime; however, on May 14, 1999, the trial court judge suspended the investigation without prejudice with respect to that person, as “it was not able to prove his participation.” 21. The State reported that 4 of the defendants had allegedly been killed in other acts of violence, and therefore ruled to close the criminal case against them. The case reportedly remained open with respect to 8 other individuals who were fugitives from justice. 22. The State additionally reported that on February 20, 2002, it ordered that official copies of the case file be forwarded to the Attorney General of the State in order for the case to be transferred to and tried in Brazil because, the State argues, Brazil prohibits the extradition of its citizens. It stated that in July 2006 the Court forwarded authenticated copies of the 17 volumes of the case file to the Public Ministry, which in turn sent them to Paraguay’s Foreign Ministry in order to forward them to the Public Ministry of Brazil. The State reported that the documents were returned because of problems with the translation, and that they were resent on February 27, 2009. According to the State, “Brazil’s Foreign Ministry acknowledged receipt of the note and accompanying records and confirmed that it had been forwarded to the Ministry of Justice for the necessary orders to be issued.” 23. Based on the above, the State indicated that “the domestic judicial remedies have still not been exhausted, because the defendants are fugitives from justice with warrants out for their arrest, and there is a formal request from the Paraguayan State for the Brazilian citizens involved in the case to be investigated in their country of origin.” 24. The State additionally maintained that the petitioners have failed to make a colorable claim that the State violated rights enshrined in the American Convention on Human Rights, given that: a) no agent of the State is accused of being involved in the journalist’s death; b) the State did not take actions to impede the journalist’s work, and c) the State has investigated the murder on its own initiative and prosecuted the suspects, within the limits of its jurisdiction. 25. Finally, in a subsequent communication, the State indicated that “In spite of the fact that the crime against journalist Santiago Leguizamón was committed on Paraguayan soil, the specific place is a land border area where there is free movement between the Paraguayan city of Pedro Juan Caballero and the Brazilian city of Ponta Pora.” The State indicated that, for those reasons, it would appear that the police investigations into the murder were opened in Brazil; however, the State had not verified whether an investigation into Santiago Leguizamón’s murder had in fact been opened in Brazil in 1991. IV. COMPETENCE OF THE COMMISSION RATIONE MATERIAE, RATIONE PERSONAE, RATIONE TEMPORIS, AND RATIONE LOCI A. Competence 26. In principle, according to Article 44 of the American Convention, the petitioner has standing to file petitions before the Commission. The alleged victim is an individual with respect to whom the State agreed to guarantee the rights enshrined in the American Convention as of the date on which it deposited its ratification instrument. Accordingly, and because the alleged violations reportedly took place in the territory of a State Party to the Convention, the IACHR concludes that it has jurisdiction ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione temporis , and ratione materia to examine the petition. 4