A. Prior matters 27. The IACHR notes that the State has not responded to the allegations lodged by the petitioners; nor has it questioned the admissibility of the petition. The IACHR wishes to make it clear that Venezuela assumed various international obligations under the terms of the American Convention on Human Rights, including those enshrined in Article 48.1 of the Convention which states that: “When the Commission receives a petition or communication (…) it shall … request information from the government of the state indicated as being responsible for the alleged violations (…) This information shall be submitted within a reasonable period (…) The Commission may request the states concerned to furnish any pertinent information…” The Convention, therefore, requires states to provide the information requested by the Commission in the processing of an individual case.” 4 28. In the judgment of the Commission it should also be pointed out that the information it requested would presumably allow it to arrive at a decision in a case lodged before it. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has stated that the cooperation of States is an essential obligation in international proceedings of the inter-American system: In contrast to domestic criminal law, in proceedings to determine human rights violations the State cannot rely on the defense that the complainant has failed to present evidence when it cannot be obtained without the State’s cooperation. The State controls the means to verify acts occurring within its territory. Although the Commission has investigatory powers, it cannot exercise them within a State’s jurisdiction unless it has the cooperation of that State. 5 29. The IACHR and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights have both stated that “the silence of the accused or elusive or ambiguous answers on its part may be interpreted as an acknowledgment of the truth of the allegations, so long as the contrary is not indicated by the record or is not compelled as a matter of law.” 6 The Commission therefore reminds Venezuela that it is obliged to cooperate with the organs of the inter-American human rights system, to enable it most effectively to fulfill its role in the protection of human rights. B. Competence of the Commission, ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis, and ratione loci 30. The petitioners possess locus standi to lodge petitions in accordance with Article 44 of the Convention. The petition names as victims private individuals whose rights under the terms of the Convention, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is obliged to respect and protect. With regard to the State, Venezuela has been a State party to the American Convention since August 9, 1977. The petitioners denounce acts or omissions that are directly attributable to the State. The Commission therefore considers that it has competence ratione personae. 31. The Commission has competence ratione materiae because the petition alleges violations by the State of the human rights of the alleged victims that are protected under the American Convention. 32. The Commission has competence ratione temporis, because the events alleged in the petition took place at a time when the obligation to respect and protect the rights enshrined in the Convention was already in force for the State. 4 See for example, IACHR Report No. 129/01, Case 12,389, Admissibility, Jean Michel Richardson, Haiti, December 3, 2001, paragraph 11. 5 I/A Court of H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Judgment July 29, 1988. Series C, No 4, paragraphs 135-36. 6 Idem, paragraph 138; and IACHR, Report No. 28/96, Case 11,297, Guatemala, October 16, 1996, paragraph 45. 5