tolerance of government authorities. That being so, there was no way the State could be held liable for facts that have never been credibly proven. 27. In 2014, the State referred to the Truth Commission and stated that, based on information as of June 2014; the case was at a "preliminary investigation" phase. It added that the National Directorate of Crimes against Life, Violent Deaths, Disappearances, Extortion and Kidnappings (DINASED) had conducted exhaustive inquiries nationwide into the disappearance of Mr. Jorge Vásquez Durand, to no avail. However, the State would continue to be attentive to any investigations that unit may undertake.8 28. The State added that, in the instant case, it had not been proven that State agents had participated in the alleged disappearance of Mr. Jorge Vásquez, so that the Ecuadorian State could not be held liable. The Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor (Procuraduría General del Estado) had asked the Ministry of the Interior and the Office of the Attorney General for a report regarding the detention of Mr. Jorge Vásquez Durand, and had concluded that the citizen had never been detained, which meant that there were no legal or factual grounds for the petitioner's complaint.9 29. In light of the above, the State of Ecuador considered, throughout processing by the IACHR, that the petition was manifestly groundless and out of order and did not state facts that end to establish a violation of the fundamental human rights protected by a number of international instruments. It added that the petition did not meet the requirements established in the American Convention and in the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR. It therefore requested that it be declared inadmissible and immediately archived. IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence of the Commission ratione materiae, ratione personae, ratione temporis, and ratione loci 30. The petitions are entitled under Article 44 of the American Convention to lodge complaints on behalf of Mr. Jorge Vásquez Durand, who is alleged to have been under the jurisdiction of the State of Ecuador at the time of the alleged facts. To that respect, the IACHR notes that the State sustains that its agents did not detain Mr. Jorge Vásquez Durand. Also, it takes into account that both parties referred to the incorporation of the case of Mr. Vásquez in the report of the Truth Commission and indicated that through the Law for Reparation of Victims and Prosecution in 2013, the State pledged to repair the “grave violations of human rights and crimes against humanity committed in Ecuador between October 4, 1983 and December 31, 2008”, documented in said report. In this regard, the Commission understands that the State does not question the jurisdiction ratione loci of the IACHR to hear the facts alleged in the petition that would have occurred in the Ecuadorian territory. 31. To that respect, Ecuador has been a State Party to the American Convention since December 28, 1977, the date on which it deposited its instrument of ratification. Thus, the Commission has ratione personae competence to examine the petition. The Commission is competent ratione loci to examine the petition because it alleges violations of rights protected in the American Convention that are purported to have occurred within the territory of Ecuador. The Commission is likewise competent ratione temporis to examine the complaint because the obligation to observe and ensure the rights protected in the Convention was already binding upon the State at the time the events described in the petition are alleged to have occurred. 8 Note of the State of Ecuador of August 25, 2014. 9 Note of the State of Ecuador of August 25, 2014. 5