9 13 well as another 41 beneficiaries, mostly from the area of Rabinal. The State notes that as a result the petitioners should review the list of alleged victims so as to exclude those who have already been compensated, and thus avoid double compensation. IV. ANALYSIS ON COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence 36. The petitioners are entitled under Article 44 of the American Convention to file claims before the IACHR. The petition names as the alleged victims 82 natural persons (individually named in paragraphs 13, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of this report) with respect to whom the Guatemalan State undertook to respect and ensure the rights enshrined in the American Convention. As regards the State, the Commission indicates that Guatemala has been a state party to the American Convention since May 25, 1978, the date on which it deposited the instrument of ratification. Therefore, the Commission is competent ratione personae to examine the petition. 37. The Commission is competent ratione loci to hear the petition insofar as it alleges violations of rights protected under the American Convention said to have occurred within the territory of Guatemala, a state party to that Convention. The Commission is competent ratione temporis because the obligation to respect and ensure the rights protected under the American Convention was already in force for the Guatemalan State as of the date of the facts alleged in the petition. Finally, the Commission is competent ratione materiae because the petition alleges possible violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. 38. The Commission reiterates that once the Convention entered into force in a State, it and not the Declaration became the primary source of law applicable by the Commission, as long as the petition refers to the alleged violation of substantially identical rights set forth in both instruments and a 14 continuing violation is not involved. Therefore, the Commission shall refer only to the provisions of the Convention. 39. In addition, the Commission is competent to hear this claim under Article XIII of the Convention on Forced Disappearance, ratified by the State on February 25, 2000, given that the crime of forced disappearance is deemed continuous or permanent as long as the fate or whereabouts of the 15 victim have not been determined. 40. Moreover, the IACHR is not competent to decide on violations of rights enshrined in the Convention on Torture, as the acts of torture are alleged to have occurred prior to January 29, 1987, date on which Guatemala deposited the instrument of ratification of the above-mentioned instrument. However, this is not an impediment for those claims to be analyzed as alleged violations of rights under the American Convention. Nor is it competent to hear alleged violations of the Universal Declaration, as it is not an instrument adopted regionally in the sphere of the inter-American system without prejudice to it 16 being used as a source of interpretation. 41. As for the State’s request for the claims to be separated out and the petition processed as separate cases, the IACHR observes that the petitioners, to make clear the persecution and even 13 Note from the State of August 24, 2009. On that occasion, the State also reported the existence of another six cases involving persons from Rabinal in which there is no final verdict as yet, and five cases that were excluded on the grounds that the alleged victims were registered in the PAC databases. 14 IACHR, Report No. 03/01 (Admissibility), Case 11,670, Amilcar Menéndez, Juan Manuel Caride and others (Welfare System) (Argentina), January 19, 2001, paras. 41 ff. 15 16 As per Article III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. IACHR, Report No. 38/09 (admissibility and merits), Case 12,670, National Association of Ex-Employees of the Peruvian Social Security Institute et al. (Peru), March 27, 2009, paragraph 70.