preliminary proceedings conducted in the case against Augusto Jaime Patiño, José Williams Zapata, Luis Alatrista Rodríguez, Carlos Tello Aliaga, Víctor Robles Del Castillo, Víctor Hugo Sánchez Morales, Raúl Huarcaya Lovón, Walter, Becerra Noblecilla, José Alvarado Díaz, Manuel Paz Ramos, Jorge Félix Díaz, Juan Carlos Moral Rojas, Tomas Cesar Rojas Villanueva, Jorge Orlando Fernández Robles and Benigno Leonel Cabrera Pino. The Supreme Court’s Criminal Law Chamber also ordered that preliminary proceedings were to continue in the case against Vladimiro Montesinos Torres, Nicolás de Bari Hermoza Ríos, Roberto Huaman Ascurra and Jesús Zamudio Aliaga. 45. By Memorandum No. 427-P-CSJM, dated November 3, 2003, the Office of the President of the Supreme Council of Military Justice (CSJM) reported that case No. 52000-2002-0071 prosecuted against (r) Division General Augusto Jaime Patiño et al. on charges of abuse of authority, and the record of the proceedings on the jurisdictional challenge, were in a Final Report prepared by the Chief Military Judge for Preliminary Proceedings of the CSJM. By Memorandum No. 345-S-CSJM, dated December 1, 2003, the General Secretariat of the CSJM reported that case No. 52000-2002-0071 had been submitted to the corresponding Chamber for consultation. 46. Further, as noted in the Expert Forensic Medical Report prepared by the Division of Autopsies and Related Examinations, of “the fourteen bodies autopsied, eight (NN two, NN three, NN six, NN seven, NN ten, NN eleven, NN twelve, and NN fourteen), representing fiftyseven percent of the cases, had bullet wounds where the entry wound was on the back of the neck, injuring cervical vertebrae; exit wounds were on the front or side of the head, which meant that the persons in question were shot from behind; the frequency and repetition of this type of head and neck wounds determined the wound pattern in these segments ().” 47. As a criminal case was pending in the domestic courts, the State’s contention was that internal remedies had not been exhausted. It therefore asked the Honorable Commission to declare petition No. 136/2003 inadmissible, in accordance with Articles 46 (1)(a) of the American Convention and 31 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. IV. ANALYSIS A. The Commission’s competence ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione temporis and ratione materiae 48. The Commission observes that Peru has been a State party to the American Convention since July 28, 1978, the date on which its instrument of ratification was deposited. 49. Under Article 44 of the American Convention, the petitioners are authorized to lodge petitions with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The alleged victims named in the petition are persons whose Convention-recognized rights and freedoms Peru undertook to respect and ensure. Therefore, the Commission is competent ratione personae to examine the petition. 50. The Commission is competent ratione loci to take up this petition, inasmuch as it alleges violations of rights protected under the American Convention said to have occurred within the territory of a State party to the Convention. The Commission is competent ratione temporis inasmuch as the facts alleged in the complaint occurred when the obligation to respect and ensure the rights recognized in the American Convention was already binding upon for the Peruvian State. Finally, the Commission is competent ratione materiae because the petition alleges violations of human rights protected under Articles 4, 8 and 25 of the American Convention. B. Requirements for the petition’s admissibility 8