4, 5, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in compliance with the obligations arising from Article 1(1) thereof. B. State 27. The Commission has received no reply from the State regarding the admissibility of the petition, in spite of due notice having been served. IV. ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Preliminary considerations 28. The IACHR notes that the State has neither responded to the petitioner’s claims nor questioned the admissibility of the petition. The IACHR would like to stress the fact that Venezuela has assumed a series of international obligations under 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 (...) The Commission may request the states concerned to furnish any pertinent information.” States parties are thus required by the Convention to provide the information that the Commission requests for the purpose of processing a case.12 29. In the Commission’s view, it should also be noted that the information it requests will presumably enable it to reach a decision in a case that has been 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.13 30. 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.”14 The Commission therefore reminds Venezuela that it is obliged to cooperate with the organs of the inter-American human rights system in the interests of the optimal performance of its duties in protecting human rights. B. Competence of the Commission ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis, and ratione loci 31. The petitioner has locus standi for presenting petitions, in accordance with Article 44 of the Convention. The petition identifies, as the alleged victims, individuals whose rights under the Convention the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has agreed to respect and ensure. With reference to the State, Venezuela has been a state party to the American Convention since August 9, 1977. The petitioner reports acts or omissions for which responsibility can be directly 12 See, for example, IACHR Nº 129/01, Case 12.389, Admissibility, Jean Michel Richardson, Haiti, December 3, 2001, paragraph 11. 13 Inter-Am.Ct.H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case (Honduras), Series C Nº 4, Judgment of July 29, 1988, paragraphs 135-36. 14 Ibid., paragraph 138; and IACHR, Report No. 28/96, Case 11.297, Guatemala, October 16, 1996, paragraph 45. 6