IV ANALYSIS 33. The IACHR will now deliver a preliminary decision concerning the representation claimed by Dr. Curtis Doebbler and the new petition filed. It will then examine the requirements for the petition’s admissibility, as set forth in the American Convention. A Preliminary issue: The new petition filed by Dr. Curtis Doebbler 34. As stated previously, on March 22, 1999, the petitioner sent a letter requesting that the Commission make all information concerning the case available to attorneys Fiona McKay and Curtis Doebbler. Later, on April 4, 2000, the petitioner sent the Commission an affidavit stating that she had revoked Dr. Curtis Doebbler’s power of attorney to serve as her legal representative in the case.4 35. By a communication dated July 6, 2000, Dr. Doebbler filed a new petition concerning the events that occurred at the Castro Castro prison, May 6 through 10, 1992 attaching a list of 610 inmates killed, wounded and those who had survived. Dr. Doebbler also presented a power of attorney from Mrs. Nila Cipriana Pacheco Neira, mother of victim Elvia Nila Zanabria, authorizing him to represent her in her daughter’s case, who died at Castro Castro prison. On January 26, 2001, Dr. Doebbler confirmed his interest in continuing to represent other alleged victims in this matter and submitted powers of attorney from Madelleine Valle Rivera and Mercedes Rios Vera, two inmates who survived and who are named in the petition filed by Dr. Doebbler on July 6, 2000. 36. The Commission has the obligation to order proceedings on contentious cases and to ensure that they are treated seriously, that the various stages of the proceedings are carried out, and that both parties produce evidence. In that sense, the IACHR enjoys broad authority to combine petitions that deal with the same facts and to separate petitions to better safeguard the interests involved (Article 40 of the Commission’s Regulations). 37. The Commission therefore decides that the new petition filed by Dr. Curtis Doebbler on July 6, 2000, and the powers of attorney and other attachments presented in connection with that complaint, are to be separated from case file 11.015. It is instructing the Secretariat of the Commission to process the new petition in accordance with the provisions of Article 30 and other relevant articles of the Commission’s Regulations. When that initial processing is completed, the Commission will make its decision on that petition. b Competence of the Commission ratione materiae, ratione personae, ratione loci and ratione temporis 38. The petitioner in the instant case is authorized under Article 44 of the American Convention to file a petition with the IACHR. The petition names individual persons as the alleged victims, whose Convention-recognized rights Peru undertook to respect and ensure. The Commission notes that Peru is a State party to the American Convention, having ratified it on July 28, 1978. The facts alleged occurred within Peruvian territory. Hence, the Commission is competent, ratione personae and ratione loci, to examine the petition. 39. The Commission is also competent ratione materiae inasmuch as the facts alleged in the petition could constitute violations of rights protected by the American Convention. 4 By a letter dated April 10, 2000, Dr. Doebbler told the Commission that he was still interested in representing the alleged victims in the case in question. On June 28, 2000, the Commission sent Dr. Doebbler a letter explaining to him that the original petition was presented by Mrs. Astete in 1992 and that on March 22, 1999, she had authorized the Commission to make all case-related information available to Dr. Doebbler. However, there was no letter or statement from Mrs. Astete on record wherein he is named as her representative in the case. The Commission also informed Dr. Doebbler that with the situation as it was, it was deferring to the petitioner’s wishes that any power of attorney she may have given to Dr. Doebbler be revoked, and was therefore terminating any such representation. All this notwithstanding the right of other alleged victims to designate Dr. Doebbler as their representative vis-à-vis the Commission 5