its Rules of Procedure, that the State has not violated any right protected under the American Convention. IV. ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence ratione temporis and ratione loci personae, ratione materiae, ratione 32. The petitioners have standing under Article 44 of the American Convention to lodge petitions with the Commission. The petition names as alleged victims Paola del Rosario Guzmán Albarracín and her next of kin on whose behalf Ecuador undertook the obligation to respect and ensure the rights enshrined in the American Convention. As to the State, the Commission notes that Ecuador has been a party to the American Convention since December 28, 1977, date on which it deposited its instrument of ratification. The Commission therefore has ratione personae competence to examine the petition. 33. The Commission is also competent ratione temporis because the obligation to respect and ensure the rights protected in the American Convention was already binding upon the State at the time the events alleged in the petition occurred. Furthermore, the Ecuadorian State deposited its instrument of ratification of the Convention of Belém do Pará on September 15, 1995. The Commission therefore has ratione temporis competence to examine allegations related to violations of these international instruments. 34. The Commission has ratione materiae competence because the petition claims violations of human rights protected by the American Convention and the Convention of Belém do Pará. The Commission is competent ratione loci to consider the petition inasmuch as it alleges violations of rights protected by the American Convention and the Convention of Belém do Pará said to have taken place within the territory of Ecuador, a state party to those treaties. B. Admissibility requisites 13