Caetano da Silva and Severino Lima da Silva. It alleges that while the court has not yet handed down its ruling on the case, it is within the time frame that the law prescribes for that purpose. It further contends that once a decision is delivered, domestic law provides a number of remedies against it, starting with an appeal, then a special remedy filed with the Superior Court, and finally another remedy with the Supreme Court. All these appeals, the State argues, have to be exhausted before the case can be brought to an international forum. The State also contends that the petitioners have offered no evidence to show that civil actions have been filed to claim compensation for the damages and injuries sustained by the alleged victim. For that reason, it argues, no claim seeking compensation in an international forum, as in the instant case, can be entertained. 19. As for Criminal Case No. 028.1997.000177-3, now before the District Court of Pilar, the State contends that 16 (sixteen) “cartas precatorias” (directives requesting court measures) have been issued, in which the judge is asking judges in other court districts to take certain measures. This, the State argues, invariably causes delays in criminal cases. The State further alleges that in October 2001, an order came down nullifying all proceedings in the case subsequent to dossier 259 in the case file, which meant that a number of proceedings had to be conducted a second time, which further delayed the case. In conclusion, the State requests that for all these reasons, the petition should be declared inadmissible and the case closed. IV. ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence 1. The Commission’s competence rationae personae, rationae loci, rationae temporis and rationae materiae 20. Under Article 44 of the American Convention, the petitioners are entitled to lodge complaints with the Inter-American Commission. The petition names Manoel Luiz Da Silva, a natural person, as the alleged victim. The Commission is, therefore, competent rationae personae to examine the petition. 21. The IACHR is competent rationae loci to examine the petition, inasmuch as it alleges violations of rights protected under the American Convention, said to have taken place within the territory of a State Party to the Convention. 22. The Inter-American Commission is competent rationae temporis, since the obligation to respect and ensure the rights 5