18. The Petitioner claims that the reservations made by the State of Barbados on November 5, 1981 upon ratification of the American Convention to Articles 4(4), 4(5) and 8(2)(e) of the American Convention do not apply here. In particular, the petitioner re-states the reservation made by the State of Barbados in connection with Article 8(2)(e), “Barbadian law does not provide as a minimum guarantee in criminal proceedings any inalienable right to be assisted by counsel provided by the State. Legal aid provides for certain scheduled offenses such as homicide, and rape” B. The State 19. The State has not presented any substantial response to the facts alleged by the Petitioner, nor has it questioned the admissibility of the petition under consideration. IV. ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUE OF ADMISSIBILITY A. Preliminary considerations 1. The silence from the State 20. The Commission notes that the State at no time has responded to the Petitioners’ allegations or questioned the petition’s admissibility. The Commission recalls that Barbados is responsible for the international obligations it assumed under the terms of the American Convention of Human Rights. Article 48(1)(a) of the Convention is of particular relevance in that it establishes procedures to be followed when a petition or communication is referred to the Commission. The IACHR shall “request information from the government of the state indicated as responsible for the alleged violations” and “(t)his information shall be submitted within a reasonable period.” The provisions of Article 48(1)(e) stipulate that the Commission “may request the states concerned to furnish any pertinent information.” This obliges State parties to the Convention to provide the Commission with such information as it may require when analyzing individual petitions. 21. The Commission stresses the importance it accords to the information it requests as it provides a basis for the Commission’s decisions on submitted petitions. Indeed, the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights has affirmed that cooperation of the States represents a fundamental obligation within the international procedural framework established by the InterAmerican 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 States jurisdiction unless 8 it has the cooperation of that State. 22. The Commission and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights have also stated that “the silence of the defendant or elusive or ambiguous answers on its part may be interpreted as an acknowledgment of the truth of the allegations; so long the contrary is not indicated by the record or is not compelled as a matter of law”. 9 Bearing this in mind, the Commission reminds the State of Barbados of its obligation to cooperate with the various agencies of the InterAmerican system of human rights in order to facilitate their efforts to protect individual rights. 8 I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Judgment of July 29, 1988, Series C. N° 4, §135 and 136. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report N° 28/96, Case N° 11.297, Juan Hernández (Guatemala), October 16, 1996, §43 9 I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C, N° 4, §138. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report N° 28/96, Case N° 11.297, Juan Hernández (Guatemala), October 16, 1996, §45 4