A. Preliminary questions 28. The IACHR notes that the State has not responded to the petitioner’s allegations or questioned the petition’s admissibility. The IACHR would like to stress that Venezuela undertook various international obligations through the American Convention on Human Rights, including those provided for in Article 48(1)(a) of the Convention, which stipulates that: "[w]hen the Commission receives a petition or communication (…) (a) it shall request information from the government of the state indicated as being responsible for the alleged violations (…)This information shall be submitted within a reasonable period (…). (e) The Commission may request the states concerned to furnish any pertinent information." The Convention, therefore, requires States to provide the information requested by the Commission in the processing of an individual case. 3 29. The IACHR feels it must also indicate that the information requested by the Commission is information that would enable it to reach a decision in a case submitted to it. The InterAmerican Court of Human Rights has indicated that cooperation by the States is an essential obligation in international proceedings in the inter-American 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 State's jurisdiction unless it has the cooperation of that State. 4 30. The IACHR and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights have also indicated that “the silence of the accused or elusive or ambiguous answers on its part may be interpreted as an acknowledgment of the truth of the allegations, so long as the contrary is not indicated by the record or is not compelled as a matter of law." 5 The Commission therefore reminds Venezuela that it has a duty to cooperate with the organs in the inter-American human rights system, for optimal fulfillment of its functions to protect human rights. B. Competence of the Commission ratione personae, ratione materiae,ratione temporis, and ratione loci 31. The petitioners have locus standi to submit petitions to the IACHR, in accordance with Article 44 of the Convention. The petition identifies as purported victims individual persons, whose rights under the Convention the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is committed to respect and ensure. With respect to the State, Venezuela is a State party to the American Convention. The petitioners denounce acts or omissions directly imputable to the State. The Commission therefore considers that it has competence ratione personae. Additionally, the petitioners allege that the actions of the "Bolivarian Circles" are directly imputable to the State. The Commission will make a determination in its report on the merits regarding the possibility that the State could be held directly responsible for the actions of such groups. 32. The Commission has competence ratione materiae, since the petition alleges violations of the Petitioners' human rights as protected by the American Convention under Articles 1(1), 2, 5, 8, 13, and 25. 33. The Commission has competence ratione temporis, since the events alleged in the petition took place at a time when the duty to respect and ensure the rights enshrined in the Convention was in force for the State, which ratified the Convention on August 9, 1977. 3 See, eg., IACHR, Report Nº 129/01, Case 12.389, Admissibility, Jean Michel Richardson, Haiti, December 3, 2001, para. 11. 4 IACtHR, Velásquez Rodríguez Case (Honduras), Series C Nº 4, Judgment of July 29, 1988, para. 135-36. 5 Id. at para. 138; IACHR, Report Nº 28/96, Case 11.297, Guatemala, October 16, 1996, para. 45. 7