accused, while the Office of the Prosecutor had the role of “assisting” and “ruling.” It also indicated that the process included the practice of confirmation of evidence, which required a considerable amount of time. 40. The State also noted the excessive use of defensive methods by the accused, the affirmative treatment given to evidence offered by all parties, the process of confirming statements made before the Human Rights Committee of the House of Delegates, and the failure of the accused to appear at hearings. 41. With respect to the participation of the Flores Bedregal family, the State noted that it became a civil party acting in the preliminary investigation and trial phase through: offering documentary evidence and proposing interrogatories; requesting acceptance of testimony from Luís García Meza; requesting the allocation of funds for investigative purposes; requesting the parties to submit evidence; opposing bail; requesting the submission of documentation; requesting the presentation of arguments; dismissing referrals; requesting times and dates for submitting arguments; petitioning for the confrontation of witnesses or evidence; requesting the submission of information by other institutions; requesting the acceptance of witness statements; responding to motions; requesting decisions; submitting an appeal; appearing in the relevant stages; among other actions taken. 42. Finally, the State noted that a Resolution of the House of Delegates dated October 2, 1997 ordered a search for the remains of Marcelo Quiroga Santa Cruz, in which steps were also taken to search for the remains of Juan Carlos Flores Bedregal. It indicated that on May 4, 2000 an inter-institutional agreement was signed between the Third Examining Magistrate for Criminal Matters and the National Academy of Science of Bolivia, Museum of Natural History, Department of Paleontology, to carry out the search work. IV. ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence 43. The petitioner is empowered by Article 44 of the Convention to submit complaints to the IACHR. The alleged victim in the case was under the jurisdiction of the Bolivian State on the date the alleged events began. As a result, the Commission is competent ratione personae to examine the petition. The Commission is competent ratione loci to hear the petition in that it alleges violations that began and continue to occur within the territory of a State party to the American Convention. 44. The State of Bolivia ratified the American Convention on July 19, 1979. In this respect, the Commission is competent ratione temporis in that the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected by the American Convention were already in effect for the State on the date when the events alleged in the petition would have occurred. Finally, the Commission is competent ratione materiae, because the petition reports violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. 45. As indicated below in paragraph 63, by virtue of the principle of iura novit curia, the Commission has incorporated the possible violation of various provisions of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. The Bolivian State ratified this instrument on May 5, 1999. However, the Commission is competent to rule on possible violations of the Convention that continue in time although they may have begun prior to that date.