12. On that same date, in accordance with Article 48.1.a of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 34 of its Regulations, the Commission forwarded to the government of the Dominican Republic the pertinent sections of the petition, and asked it to provide information on the events reported in that petition within ninety days. It also requested any evidence or elements of proof that would enable it to determine whether all domestic legal remedies had been exhausted in this case. 13. August 2, 1994, the Commission sent a letter to the government of the Dominican Republic to express its intention to visit the country in September 1994 for the purpose of compiling information relating to various cases, including the case of Narciso González. 14. In its initial reply on September 19, 1994, the government expressed its concern over the disappearance of Narciso González and asserted that the Dominican authorities were conducting a search for him. However, it did not provide any specific information related to his abduction and disappearance or to the exhaustion of domestic remedies. Nor did it provide any response to the proposed visit by the Commission. 15. The Commission forwarded to the petitioner the relevant sections of the government's reply. On January 20, 1995, it sent them once again. 16. On November 17, 1995, the Commission sent a second letter to the government of the Dominican Republic reiterating the original request for information and asking for specific information on this case. 17. In view of the failure of the government to respond, on January 2, 1996, the Commission repeated the preceding request, and granted a period of 30 days for it to reply. The Commission expressly indicated in its letter that if it did not receive the information requested, it would consider the possible application of Article 42 of its Regulations, which it transcribed in full. 18. On January 16, 1996, the government alleged that the letter had been late to arrive and requested a 30-day extension to respond to the request. On January 17, 1996, the Commission granted the requested extension. However, the Dominican government did not provide the information requested by the Commission. 19. On January 25, 1996, the petitioners sent additional information on the case to the Commission. This information included the conclusions of a Truth Committee set up by civilians in the Dominican Republic to seek information on the disappearance of Narciso González. These conclusions referred to a series of relevant facts related to the disappearance of Narciso González. They indicated that the vehicle in which González had been taken away belonged to police officers. Reference was made to certain telephone calls received by the sister-in-law of González in which she was advised that he was being held by the National Police of the Dominican Republic. Mention was made of remarks by an individual who was an acquaintance of González and who happened to be in custody at a police station and observed at that place a person who resembled Gonzalez. Finally, the information indicated that Professor González had been put under secret surveillance days before he was abducted. 20. On February 5, 1996, the Commission transmitted to the government of the Dominican Republic the pertinent sections of that information. IV. CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING ADMISSIBILITY 21. The Commission may hear cases submitted to it for its consideration provided they meet the official requirements of admissibility pursuant to Article 46 of the American Convention and Article 32 of the Commission's Regulations. Once the procedural steps specified in Article 34 of its Regulations were completed, the Commission began an analysis of this case to determine its admissibility. 22. Since, on the basis of ratione loci, the Commission is empowered to hear complaints regarding human rights violations affecting a person under the jurisdiction of a state party to the 2