8 41. The State considers that the allegations of the petitioners regarding the failure to prevent and to effectively sanction the crime of rape are not even moderately substantiated by serious arguments. It alleges that the injuries inflicted upon Linda Loaiza López were not perpetrated by government officials and, therefore, the Venezuelan State cannot be held liable for them. The State agrees with the petitioners when they assert that the international concept of rape has changed recently, which is reflected both in Venezuelan society and in its legislation. The State indicates that the Criminal Code in Venezuela in 2001 provided the following with respect to the crime of rape in its Article 375: “whoever by means of violence or threats has forced any person, whether of one sex or the other, to engage in sexual intercourse, shall be sentenced to imprisonment for five to ten years….” It indicates that the reform of the Criminal Code in 2005 constituted an advance by providing a more flexible understanding of what is meant by the “crime of rape” in the Venezuelan legal system. 42. The State disagrees with the assertion by the alleged victims regarding the protection measures requested by the petitioners. It indicates that, on December 29, 2006, Linda Loaiza López requested measures of protection, as a result of which the Nineteenth District Prosecutor’s Office with full authority nationwide and the Superior District Attorney’s Office of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas ordered the Twenty-Sixth Control Court of First Instance of the Criminal Circuit Court of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas to issue measures of protection for the benefit of the alleged victim. These included continuous patrols and police stationing at the place of residence of the victim, for which it appointed Metropolitan Police Officers. Therefore the Venezuelan State concludes that there was no violation of Article 7(d) of the Belém do Pará Convention which refers to the adoption of “legal measures to require the perpetrator to refrain from harassing, intimidating or threatening the woman or using any method that harms or endangers her life or integrity, or damages her property.” 43. The State finally points out that it guarantees gender equality as a human right as embodied in Article 21 and other provisions of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. It provides abundant information about a series of actions undertaken to improve the living conditions of Venezuelan women, such as the establishment of the National Women’s Institute (hereinafter referred to as “INAMUJER”), the adoption of the Law on Equal Opportunities for Women in 1999, and the Law on the Right of Women to a Life without Violence, among other measures. IV. ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence 44. The petitioners are authorized, in principle, by Article 44 of the American Convention to lodge petitions with the Commission. The petition indicates individual persons as alleged victims, regarding whom the State of Venezuela has pledged to respect and guarantee the rights enshrined in the American Convention. Regarding the State, the Commission points out that Venezuela has been party to the Convention since August 9, 1977, the date on which it deposited the respective instrument of ratification, and it is also party to the Belém do Pará Convention since February 3, 1995. The Commission is therefore competent ratione personae to examine the petition. 45. The Commission is also competent ratione loci to hear the petition, because the alleged violations of the rights protected by the American Convention and Belém do Pará Convention were said to have occurred within the territory of Venezuela, which is a State party to the above-mentioned treaties. The Inter-American Commission is also competent ratione temporis because the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected under the American Convention and Belém do Pará Convention was already in force on the date the facts alleged in the petition were said to have occurred. Finally, the Commission is competent ratione materiae, because the petition reports the possible violation of human rights protected under the American Convention and the Belém do Pará Convention. B. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 46. According to Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention, for a case to be admissible, it must make sure “that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance