Paz Permanent Human Rights Assembly to secure the release of Mrs. Tineo Godos, because they were illegally, unfairly, and abusively expelled from Bolivia on February 24, 2001. B. State 13. No reply regarding the admissibility of the petition has been received from the State, even though due notice was served on January 13, 2004. IV. A. ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY Preliminary Questions 14. The IACHR notes that the State has neither responded to the petitioners’ allegations nor questioned the admissibility of the petition with respect to the events that took place in Bolivia on February 19, 2001. The IACHR also points out that the complaint deals exclusively with the incidents that took place in Bolivia on that date. Although later incidents that occurred in Peru are referred to, the petitioners have lodged no complaint against that State and so the IACHR will not address those allegations. The IACHR would like to note that Bolivia has assumed a series of international obligations under the terms of the American Convention on Human Rights, including those set forth in Article 48(1)(a) thereof, to wit: “When the Commission receives a petition or communication... (a) ... it shall request information from the government of the state indicated as being responsible for the alleged violations... This information shall be submitted within a reasonable period... (e) The Commission may request the states concerned to furnish any pertinent information.” States parties are thus required to provide the information that the Commission requests for the purpose of processing a case.5 15. The Commission believes it is important to note that the information it requests will presumably enable it to reach a decision in a case brought before it. The InterAmerican Court of Human Rights has ruled that cooperation by states is a basic obligation in international proceedings under the inter-American system: In contrast to domestic criminal law, in proceedings to determine human rights violations the State cannot rely on the defense that the complainant has failed to present evidence when it cannot be obtained without the State’s cooperation. The State controls the means to verify acts occurring within its territory. Although the Commission has investigatory powers, it cannot exercise them within a State’s jurisdiction unless it has the cooperation of that State.6 16. The IACHR and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights have also said that: “the silence of the accused or elusive or ambiguous answers on its part may be interpreted as an acknowledgment of the truth of the allegations, so long as the contrary is not indicated by the record or is not compelled as a matter of law.” 7 The 5 See, for example, IACHR Nº 129/01, Case 12.389, Admissibility, Jean Michel Richardson, Haiti, December 3, 2001, paragraph 11. 6 Inter-Am.Ct.H.R, Velásquez Rodríguez Case (Honduras), Series C Nº 4, Judgment of July 29, 1988, paragraphs 135-36. 7 Ibid., paragraph 138; IACHR, Report Nº 28/96, Case 11.297, Guatemala, October 16, 1996, paragraph 45.