27. With respect to the requirements for admissibility, the petitioners argue that the case falls under the exception provided in Article 46.2 of the American Convention, because of the circumstances in which Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas and José Luis Ibsen Peña disappeared, the failure to obtain judicial clarification of the facts, and the unwarranted delay in criminal proceedings. B. Position of the State 28. In its response of February 3, 2005, the State reported that criminal proceedings were at the plenary stage (i.e. the prelude to judgment and sentence). The latest developments in the case referred to the confessions submitted in September 2004 by Pedro Perci González Monasterio, Juan Antonio Elio Rivero, Oscar Monacho Vaca, Elías Moreno Caballero, Morant Lijeron and Sarmiento Alanes. Moreover, the State reported that, by order of the Ninth Criminal Court, Ernesto Morant Lijeron and Justo Sarmiento were under preventive arrest, while the other defendants were free on bail. 29. The State reported that on November 12, 2001, the Constitutional Court ordered continuation of criminal proceedings against Pedro Perci González Monasterio, Juan Antonio Elio Rivero, Oscar Monacho Vaca, Elías Moreno Caballero, Morant Lijeron and Sarmiento Alanes, who had invoked the statute of limitations. 30. In its response of June 30, 2005 the State argued that its determination to clarify the disappearances of José Luis Ibsen Peña and Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas and its battle against impunity in this case could be seen in the court decision of April 18, 2005 issued by the First Civil Chamber of the Superior District Court of Santa Cruz, which revoked the ruling of the Fifth Court of Santa Cruz quashing criminal action against the defendants and ordered proceedings to continue to their conclusion. 31. With respect to Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas, the State argued that, according to information from the ASOFAMD, it is a known fact that in 1984 his remains were found in the public cemetery of La Paz, deposited in the mausoleum of ASOFAMD, and that they were recorded in the records of the cemetery. 32. Finally, the State noted that on June 18, 2003 it established the Interagency Council on Forced Disappearances to process information for the discovery of the remains of victims of forced disappearance. By decree of January 9, 2004 for it amended the composition of the Council, which is now chaired by the Minister of the President's Office or his representative. Moreover, it reported that it has assigned a budget for fiscal year 2005 for the purpose, among others, of conducting forensic studies on the remains of disappeared persons such as Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas. 33. The State requested that the case be declared inadmissible because, in its view, the petitioners are making effective use of their access to justice; the Interagency Council is working to clarify forced disappearances and has a budget for forensic studies on the remains of disappeared persons such as Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas; and the petitioners have failed to exhaust domestic remedies. The State also argues that the petition has been submitted too late. IV. ANALYSIS OF JURISDICTION AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Jurisdiction of the Commission, ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis and ratione loci 34. According to Article 44 of the American Convention and Article 23 of the IACHR rules of procedure, the petitioners have standing (locus standi) to lodge petitions with the Commission in respect of alleged violations of the rights established in the American Convention. Bolivia is a State Party to the Convention and consequently has international responsibility for violations of that instrument. The presumed victims are individuals for whom the State has pledged to 5