prosecutor. 15 See footnote 1 for the full text of the reply. The State has not replied regarding the additional information it was sent on August 30, 2000. C. Request for precautionary measures related to the case 44. On November 8, 1996, the Commission received a request for precautionary measures to protect various judicial authorities and human rights defenders in Río Grande do Norte allegedly on a death list drawn up by the “Golden Boys” because of their opposition to the death squad’s activities and their denunciations in connection with the murder of Gilson de Nogueira, the month before. The applicants cited, for the Commission’s information, a list of 31 instances of repression, murder, and torture by police that they attributed to the “Golden Boys” under the leadership of the Deputy Secretary for Public Security. 45. The Commission informed the Government of this denunciation on November 13, 1996 and asked it to comment. The Commission received no answer to this request. However, on December 17, the petitioners reported that the Federal Minister of Justice and the Chair of the Council for the Defense of the Individual had formed a committee to investigate the situation in Río Grande do Norte, but that the resolution concerned did not contemplate providing protection to the people on the hit list. 46. On December 19, 2000, pursuant to Article 29(2) of its Regulations, the Commission decided to request precautionary measures to protect that list of threatened persons, which included the State Attorney General (Procurador General de Justicia del Estado), the Prosecutor (Procurador de Justicia), five justice outreach workers (promotores de justicia) and a congressman; as well as two human rights defenders at the Center for Human Rights and Popular Memory. 47. In April 1997, the Commission was notified that one of these persons resigned from his post in the Chamber of Deputies due to the lack of security in his work environment. It was also told that no security measures had been adopted and that there had been an attack on the home of one of the human rights defenders, Dr. Roberto Monte. Moreover, the Deputy Secretary of Public Security, Maurilio Pinto de Medeiros, who had been denounced as the commander of the “Golden Boys” death squad, had been reinstated in the post from which he had been temporarily suspended. 48. The Commission received further information on May 19 and October 16, 1998, and on April 19, 1999, updating the information on the judicial proceeding related to the events that gave rise to the request for precautionary measures. That information showed and described the still dangerous situation in Río Grande do Norte. The information referred to the discovery of new evidence regarding the activities of the “Golden Boys” and mentioned that several public and private human rights defenders had had to leave Río Grande do Norte for security reasons. 49. In each of these cases, the information was transmitted to the Government within the process of requesting precautionary measures. No reply from the State has been received. V. ANALYSIS OF JURISDICTION AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence Ratione Materiae, Ratione Tempori, Ratione Personae and Ratione Loci of the Commission 50. The Commission has jurisdiction ratione materiae (over the subject matter), ratione loci (over the place), and ratione tempori (by reason of time) since the case concerns rights protected by the Convention under Articles 4, 8, 25, and 1, and the alleged violation of those rights that occurred in Brazil on October 20, 1996, subsequent to Brazil’s ratification of the Convention on September 25, 1992. 16 15 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Velásquez Rodríguez case, Judgment of July 29, 1988, paragraph 164. 16 The Commission notes that the General Assembly of the OAS resolved on June 5, 2000 “To invite the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights to continue to pay due attention to the situation of human rights defenders in the Americas” and said it was “concerned over the persistence in the Americas of situations that directly or indirectly prevent or hamper the work of individuals, groups, or organizations working to promote and protect fundamental rights.” [AG/RES. 1711 (XXX-O/00)] 7