27. The Commission has competence ratione materiae, in that the petitioner alleges violations of Articles 1, 4, 5, 8, 13 and 25 of the American Convention. 28. Under Article 44 the petitioner is entitled to submit complaints to the Commission, and the victim in this case is an individual with respect to whom Ecuador had undertaken to guarantee and respect the rights enshrined in the American Convention. As regards the State, the Commission notes that Ecuador has been a State party to the American Convention since ratifying it on December 28, 1977. The Commission therefore has competenceratione personae to examine the complaint. 29. The IACHR has competence ratione temporis in that the sequence of events began in June 1988, when the obligation of respecting and ensuring the rights enshrined in the American Convention was already in force for the Ecuadorian State. 30. The parties have no doubts or disagreements about the fact that the incidents described in the petition took place in Ecuadorian territory, in an area under the jurisdiction of the State. Thus, the competence ratione loci of the Commission is clear. B. Other Requirements for Admissibility a. Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies 31. The Commission notes that this petition raises important questions of exhaustion of domestic remedies. Ecuadorian law criminalizes the act of administering a drug to a patient that results in the patient’s death as intentional homicide when a physician administers the drug. The State, however, requires the individual victim or the heirs thereof, to initiate the criminal proceedings by the filing of a complaint and does not provide for the initiation of the proceedings de oficio. 32. In the instant case, the legal responsibility of two physicians for an alleged medical malpractice is in question. The two physicians worked in a private hospital, but since Ecuadorian law considers the alleged act to be tantamount to "intentional homicide" the State has a clear interest in seeing that the perpetrators of such a crime are brought to justice. Therefore, the issue to be decided is whether the petitioners were afforded due process and access to the appropriate judicial remedies in clarifying the facts of the case and in seeking justice before the Ecuadorian judicial system, pursuant to Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. Consequently, the Commission will not consider the alleged violations of the right to life under Article 4 of the American Convention, nor the allegations raised with regard to violations of the right to humane treatment under Article 5 nor the right to information under Article 13, since the facts were not presented in such a way as to substantiate a characterization of a violation of these articles. 33. Ecuador argues that domestic remedies have not been exhausted against Dr. Fabián Espinoza, the physician who actually administered the lethal drug, since the legal proceedings against him have been suspended due to his being a fugitive. The judicial proceedings in the case against him will only be renewed if he is apprehended or returns voluntarily. As regards Dr. Ramiro Montenegro López, the attending physician in the hospital at the time, criminal charges against him were dismissed on December 13, 1999 by the Sixth Chamber of the Superior Court, on the grounds that the statute of limitations had tolled in his case. 34. The State, in its response, dated October 16, 2001, alleged that the petition should be declared inadmissible due to the fact that domestic remedies had not been exhausted since criminal proceedings were pending against Dr. Espinoza, the resident physician who was a fugitive from justice. 5