3 of Mrs. Díaz Aparicio. It was alleged that that investigation is still in the preliminary stage and that in November 2009 the Office of the Public Prosecutor ordered its provisional archiving. B. The State 13. In its initial brief, the State sent official letters from the Joint Armed Forces Command, the Army General Inspectorate, divisions of the National Police of Peru and the Office of Detainee Control. These letters indicated that there was no record of the intervention or arrest of Teresa Díaz Aparicio by state security personnel. A communication received by the IACHR on January 26, 2005 maintained that in 2003 Mr. Federico Díaz Aparicio submitted communications to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the APRODEH organization, and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission “in which he detailed the events relating to the disappearance of his sister.” 14. The State asserted that on March 7, 2003 an order was issued to open a police investigation under the direction of the Office of the Special Prosecutor on Forced Disappearances, Extrajudicial Executions, and Exhumation of Clandestine Graves with respect to the disappearance of Mrs. Díaz Aparicio. It stated that during the prosecutor’s activities statements were taken from relatives and others close to the injured party, and information was sought from various state entities such as the Ministry of the Interior, DIRCOTE, the National Office of Electoral Processes, the Interrogations Division of the National Police, the National Penitentiary Institute, the San Marcos National University, hospitals, and morgues in the province of Lima. 15. In a communication received on June 13, 2011 the State asserted that “a considerable amount of time has elapsed during which neither the victim’s representatives nor the IACHR have pushed for the processing of this case.” In this regard, it noted “its concern regarding the inaction on the part of both the petitioners and the Honorable Commission, as shown by the passage of time, inaction that has affected the process and limited the State’s ability to present a defense.” 16. The State attached an official letter from the alternate representative of the Attorney General’s Office to the National Human Rights Council dated May 10, 2010. According to that letter, on February 13, 2009 the Prosecutor in charge of the investigation into the alleged disappearance of Teresa Díaz Aparicio issued a resolution of provisional archiving and submitted the case file to the Division of Police of the Public Prosecutor’s Office “in order to continue with the investigation and submit information on new evidence.” That same letter indicated that it was impossible to obtain necessary evidence that could be used to identify those allegedly responsible for the disappearance of Mrs. Díaz Aparicio. 17. The State argued “that due to the passage of time and the absence of efforts to pursue the process, new evidence has not been presented, the principle of a matter already concluded has been operating in this petition, and additionally there has been no confirmation of the violation of any of the rights enshrined in the Convention.” Finally, the State asked the IACHR to archive the petition in accordance with Article 48(1)(b) of its Rules of Procedure and Article 42(1) of the Convention. IV. ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione temporis, and ratione materiae of the Commission 18. The petitioners are empowered by Article 44 of the Convention to submit complaints to the Commission. The alleged victim is a natural person who was under the jurisdiction of the Peruvian State on the date of the alleged events. For its part, Peru ratified the American Convention on July 28, 1978. Consequently, the Commission is competent ratione personae to hear the petition. 19. The Commission is competent ratione loci to hear the petition, since it contains allegations of violations of rights protected by the American Convention that allegedly took place within the territory of a state party to that treaty.