was taking refuge in the Nova Brasília favela and had heavy weaponry: rifles, machine guns, grenades, etc. 3. It was also clearly demonstrated that the drug traffickers reacted violently, and that three civil police officers were injured as a result. 4. As a result of the incident, two investigations were launched. The police inquiry conducted by the Narcotics Enforcement Division therefore intended to investigate whether there was criminal or culpable excess in the repressive police action. The other police inquiry, brought by the Special Commission on Torture and Abuse of Authority, sought to investigate the claim that summary executions had occurred and that the civil police had committed other violent acts. Representatives of the Office of the Public Prosecutor supervised both inquiries. 16. With respect to the investigations process, the State transcribed the information supplied by representatives of the Office of the Public Prosecutor: It should be clarified that the first inquiry underway in the DRE found that if there was criminal or culpable excess in the police action, attaching to the report, as it did, technical documents, such as medical examiner's reports, in which this state attorney did in fact establish that some of the bodies showed punctures of both eyes, this requires more detailed investigation, such as that mentioned above, with summonsing of individuals. However, the problem was that there was not enough time. In addition to that investigation, another was begun in the Special Commission against Torture and Abuse of Authority in view of the statements of some of those involved in the confrontation that there had been summary executions and even sexual abuse by the police. The fact is that such statements also require more detailed investigation, since the individuals who were informed on have ties with the dead, it being common knowledge that the law of silence prevails in the area, there being a general consensus to attempt to undermine the police, the traffickers even offering rewards to anyone who does. (…) IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence ratione materiae, ratione personae, ratione temporis, and ratione loci of the Commission 17. The Commission has competence ratione personae (by reason of the person involved) to examine the case because the petition indicates that the alleged victims are individuals whose rights, as enshrined in the Convention, the Brazilian State undertook to respect and guarantee. In addition, the facts alleged relate to the action of agents of the state of Rio de Janeiro and, under Article 28 of the Convention, where a federal state, such as Brazil, is involved, the national government is responsible under international law for acts committed by agents of the constituent states of the federation. 18. The Commission has competence ratione materiae (by reason of the matter involved) as the case involves allegations of violations of rights recognized in the Convention, that is: the right to life (Article 4); the right to humane treatment (Article 5); the right to a fair trial (Article 8); the right to privacy [Article 11(1)]; and the right to inviolability of the home [Article 11(2) and 11(3)]. 19. The Commission has competence ratione temporis (by reason of the time involved) as the alleged facts date from October 18, 1994, when the obligation to respect and guarantee the 3