Petrobras an oil extraction permit covering an area located in the provinces of Orellana and Pastaza, in a zone known as Block 31, without consulting either the indigenous peoples or members of civil society. They add that in August 2013, the executive branch of government presented the National Assembly with a government project to enable the exploitation of hydrocarbons in Blocks 31 and 43, where the presence of peoples in isolation had been detected. 22. In April 2013, the petitioners reported that “the evidence available to date suggests that a fresh massacre of the Tagaeri and Taromenani indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation has occurred in Yasuní.” Specifically, they state that on March 5, 2013, members of the Taromenani people attacked and killed with spears Ompore and Buganey, two Waorani adults, at Yarentaro in Oil Block 16. They say that the couple’s death caused a group of between 12 and 18 Waoranis to organize a revenge attack. According to their claims, after several incursions into the area to locate them, on March 30 the Waorani group attacked the Taromenani with firearms and spears, killing somewhere between 30 and 50 men, women, and children. They state that two Taromenani sisters, aged approximately 2 and 6, were abducted and kept by the Waoranis who participated in the attack. 23. They claim that the State failed to take the steps necessary to avoid this massacre. According to the petitioners, from the time that Ompore and Buganey were killed in early March, “several officials were aware that the inhabitants of Yarentaro wanted revenge against the Taromenani.” They maintain that although “the State was alerted through various channels […] of the danger[…], the Government took no steps to avoid those acts of retaliation.” They report that the prosecution service opened a preliminary inquiry; they claim, however, that it is not being pursued diligently, since no expert opinions have been obtained, no statements regarding the incident have been taken, and there has been no appropriate interinstitutional coordination for establishing the facts. They claim that the authorities located the massacre site in a flyover; however, they did not land to examine the bodies. Accordingly, they maintain that there is a lack of interest in investigating on the part of the prosecution service and other authorities. They add that after the March 2013 incident, they wrote to various state authorities to alert them regarding fresh incursions by the Waorani into the area of the massacre and about the need to take steps to prevent future acts of violence; those communications, they claim, received no replies.5 24. Regarding the two Taromenani girls, they report that during the alleged massacre, they witnessed the murder of their mother and other members of their people, they were separated from the indigenous people to which they belonged, and they were taken by members of the Waorani people from which the assailants came. They contend that the Ecuadorian State failed to adopt immediate and appropriate protective measures in consideration of their status as uncontacted indigenous children. They state that, on the contrary, on November 26, 2013, the Ecuadorian State conducted an operation in which “hooded personnel” abruptly removed the older girl from school and carried her away in a helicopter. They say that since that date, the older girl has been kept in the custody of the State, while the younger girl has remained in a Waorani community, separated from her sister. 25. Regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the petitioners claim that the exceptions contained in sections (b) and (c) of Article 46(2) of the American Convention are applicable in this case. They contend that after the acts of violence that the Tagaeri and Taromenani peoples have suffered, the State has failed in its duty to investigate, prosecute, and punish the perpetrators, even though the crimes are publicly actionable. They claim that to date no agency of the judiciary has issued any judgment determining responsibilities and, if applicable, punishing the perpetrators of these crimes, which constitutes an unjustified delay. 26. Furthermore, they contend that although amparo remedies can be filed against the actions or omissions of public authorities that violate or could violate rights enshrined in the Constitution of Ecuador, such remedies can only be lodged by the persons affected, either in person or through an attorney, and only in cases involving the protection of the environment can they be filed by any person. They hold that given the sui 5 Specifically, the petitioners presented a letter addressed to the President of the Republic, lodged with the office of the President on October 4, 2013; the same letter was lodged with the Interior Ministry and the office of the Attorney General on October 7, 2013. 5