investigations begin, which means that with said decision, domestic remedies were not exhausted, but that it was necessary to pursue those indicated by the court. 20. The Venezuelan State mentions that the Court has established that the legal duty of the states is to investigate human rights violations that have taken place in its jurisdiction, noting that this is an obligation of means, but not of results, thus it is not breached when the desired result is not attained, and that the violation of this duty actually occurs when the state apparatus acts so as to impede an adequate investigation into the facts, such that the violation remains in total impunity. 21. It also notes that with respect to the decision to deny the writ of habeas corpus, review through the Constitutional Chamber is proper; the Constitutional Chamber which may declare the nullity of the decision for a new habeas corpus proceeding to begin, as has occurred in the case of the disappearance of Mr. Monasterios, 1 in which the Constitutional Chamber first declared admissible the amparo filed by the Human Rights Ombudsman for the Caracas Metropolitan Area against the judicial decision denying the habeas corpus, in a case related to an alleged forced disappearance. The Chamber adduced that the two appeals allowed in the case of an amparo action had already been exhausted, thus there was no place for a new constitutional amparo: the right to prompt and effective judicial protection of constitutional rights should have been considered satisfied (judgment of April 25, 2000). Yet later the same Constitutional Chamber decided to exercise the exceptional and discretional power of review provided for at Article 336(10). 22. The State further notes that at the initiative of the Public Ministry, one can accede to a constitutional review and then initiate criminal actions for the purpose of clarifying the facts and determining the whereabouts of the disappeared person; and that so long as the person has not been found alive and the corpse has not been found, the investigation has not concluded, and, accordingly, domestic remedies have not been exhausted. IV. ANALYSIS A. Competence ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis, andratione loci of the Inter-American Commission 23. The petitioners are authorized by Article 44 of the American Convention to submit complaints to the IACHR. Those complaints name as alleged victims individuals with respect to whom Venezuela undertook to respect and ensure the rights enshrined in the Convention. As regards the State, the Commission observes that Venezuela is a state party to the American Convention, having ratified it on August 9, 1977. In addition, the IACHR observes that as regards passive competence ratione personae, it is a general principle of international law that the State must answer for the acts of all its organs, including those of its Judiciary. Accordingly, the Commission is competent to take up this petition. 24. The Commission is competent ratione loci to take cognizance of this petition insofar as it alleges that rights protected in the American Convention were violated in the territory of a state party to that Convention. 25. The Commission is competent ratione temporis, as the facts set forth in the petition are alleged to have taken place when the obligation to respect and ensure the rights established in the Convention were already in force for the Venezuelan State. With respect to the arguments on possible violations of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, the Commission observes that Venezuela ratified it on January 19, 1999. Consequently, the facts that are the subject matter of this case are alleged to have taken place when this international instrument was in force in Venezuela. 1 Judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Supreme Court of Venezuela, of August 14, 2000. 5