6 or included in the regime provided for in Law 15,848. It argued that Law 15,848 had been “violated de facto” (“vulnerada de hecho”), given that all the case records that have been forwarded to the Executive branch had been returned to the Judicial branch with the express order to investigate each of the cases. With respect to the Executive branch decree of December 12, 2005 to which the petitioner makes reference, the State clarified that the Executive branch held, in the specific case submitted for consultation by the Judicial branch, that the Executive branch had no authority to impede the search for the truth pursuant to Law 15,848, and that its legal mandate is limited to determining whether the criminal action has become time-barred. 29. With respect to the cases referred to in the petition, the State argued that they were not covered by Law 15,848, given that the Executive ordered in December 2005 that they be excluded. With respect to the cases of Diana Maidanic, Laura Raggio Odizzio, and Silvia Reyes, it argued that as regards the case of Mr. Washington Barrios, the husband of Silvia Reyes, the Executive branch concluded that the judges should have investigated the facts related to persons detained and disappeared instead of forwarding the records to the Executive branch for the purposes set out at Article 3 of Law 15,848. It alleged that as the cases of Diana Maidanic, Laura Raggio Odizzio, and Silvia Reyes were associated with the disappearance of Washington Barrios, these were being investigated, since “without prejudice to an extrajudicial execution having been committed [those who carried out the operation] pillaged goods at the home.” 30. The State argued that most of the persons allegedly responsible for participating in cases of forced disappearances or extrajudicial executions are currently behind bars at the prison known as Establecimiento de Reclusión No. 6. It emphasized that in that framework, eight officers had been tried and convicted (six military officers and two police officers) for committing crimes related to “Plan Cóndor” as a result of the investigations into the disappearance of Adalberto Soba in the Republic of Argentina on September 26, 1976, after the Executive determined that its judicial action was appropriate, on declaring that said case was not covered by Law 15,848. It mentioned the detention and prosecution of the former President, Juan María Bordaberry, and of the former foreign minister, Juan Carlos Blanco, for the assassinations during the military dictatorship of legislators Zelmar Michelini and Héctor Gutiérrez Ruiz and of citizens Rosario Barredo and William Whitelaw in the Republic of Argentina in May 1976. Finally, it reported that Lieutenant General Gregorio Álvarez had been tried on December 17, 2007, and convicted, under Article 21 of Law 18,026, that incorporates the crime of forced disappearance provided for in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence of the Commission ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis, and ratione loci 31. The petitioner has standing to file a petition with the Commission under Article 44 of the American Convention and Article 23 of its Rules of Procedure. The petition describes as alleged victims individuals with respect to which the State has assumed the commitment to respect and ensure the rights recognized in the American Declaration, the American Convention as of April 19, 1985, the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons as of April 2, 1996, and the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture as of November 10, 1992. Therefore, the Commission is competent ratione personae to examine the petition. 32. The Commission is competent ratione loci to consider the petition, since from the facts alleged one deduces possible violations of the rights protected by the American Declaration, the American Convention, the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, and