must be paid to the complex nature of this matter, given, on the one hand, that it involves the basic and collective rights of peoples in isolation and, on the other, “the number, statuses, and location of the people involved in the proceedings, suspects and witnesses alike,” in addition to the location where the investigations are being carried out. In light of this, it contends that “the State took the correct steps, as indicated in the applicable provisions of criminal law, to investigate and resolve the existence or commission of alleged crimes within its domestic jurisdiction, in particular in the regrettable incidents connected with the problem of the TagaeriTaromenane indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation.” 34. Regarding the alleged massacre of March 2013, while not denying the facts alleged by the petitioners, the State notes that a preliminary inquiry is underway under the aegis of the prosecution service of the Ecuadorian State. Regarding the girls who “allegedly belong to the peoples in voluntary isolation,” Ecuador indicates that the Ministry of Justice, Human Rights, and Worship is “monitoring and evaluating [their] general state of health.” According to most recent information submitted to the IACHR by the State, the girls were being cared for by two Waorani families and had been inoculated, while anthropological studies were being conducted to determine whether they did in fact belong to the Taromenani indigenous people. 35. In addition, Ecuador contends that the petition seeks for the agencies of the inter-American system to serve as a fourth instance, in that it appears that the petition wants the Commission to rule on the innocence or guilt of the individuals involved in the facts. On account of the foregoing, the State requests that the petition be ruled inadmissible. 36. Lastly, in a communication dated May 9, 2014, the State reiterated that the present matter involved certain complexities stemming, among other things, “from the number, status, and location of persons associated with an intercultural process […] complexities that become apparent in a criminal investigation within this environment” and that they must be taken into account in light of the reasonable period criterion and the State’s due diligence obligation in this case. Likewise, it maintained that the analysis of the present matter should focus exclusively on the temporal and factual context denounced at the time the petition was presented and not on situations that occurred subsequently. IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence of the Commission Ratione Personae, Ratione Materiae, Ratione Temporis, and Ratione Loci 37. The petitioners are entitled, under Article 44 of the American Convention, to lodge complaints with the IACHR. The petition names, as the alleged victims, the Tagaeri and Taromenani indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation and their members,6 with respect to whom the State has agreed to respect and ensure the rights enshrined in the American Convention. With respect to the State, the Commission notes that Ecuador has been a party to the American Convention since December 28, 1977, when it deposited the corresponding instrument of ratification. The Commission therefore has competence ratione personae to examine the complaint. 38. The Commission has competence ratione loci to deal with the petition since it alleges violations of rights protected by the American Convention occurring within the territory of a state party 6 The alleged victims are the Tagaeri and Taromenani peoples, with a population of around 100 to 200 individuals. These nomadic peoples inhabit a specific geographical region of Ecuador’s eastern rain forest, the existence of which is identified by means of several elements. The IACHR acknowledges that the conditions of isolation in which these peoples live poses a sui generis situation as regards the possibility of individually identifying their members, in that it presumes contact with mainstream society. Nevertheless, that situation in no way poses an obstacle to the protection of their rights through the inter-American system, which must take into account those circumstances. This is in line with the organs of the Inter-American System’s recognition of indigenous peoples as collective subjects of rights enshrined in the inter-American instruments, and it also respects their decision to remain in isolation as an expression of the people’s right of self-determination. On this point, see: I/A Court H. R., The Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community Case, Judgment of August 31, 2001, Series C No. 79, para. 149; IACHR, Report No. 62/04, Kichwa People of the Sarayaku Community and its Members (Ecuador), para. 47; IACHR, Report No. 58/09, Kuna of Mandungandi and Emberá of Bayano Indigenous Peoples and their Members (Panama), para. 26; IACHR, Report No. 79/09, Ngöbe Indigenous Communities and their Members in the Changuinola River Valley (Panama), para. 26. 7