B. Position of the State 18. The State contends that “[f]rom the beginning of the military criminal investigation […] legal and constitutional principles were respected at all times, as well as human rights instruments signed and ratified by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, in the course of carrying out its duty to exercise ius puniendi in representation of the Venezuelan State.” In his respect, the State argues that in the criminal proceedings against Mr. Usón “legal deadlines for the submission of documents or of testimonial evidence,” were always respected: should it have been to the contrary, the military judicial organs, guarantors of effective judicial protection and of due process, would have declared these submissions absolutely null.” 19. Regarding the claims on the part of the alleged victim of a violation of his freedom of expression, the State asserts that Mr. Usón had held “that the facts that occurred in ‘Fort Mara’ had been premeditated,” thus engaging in “abusive expressions [that] insult and offend the National Armed Forces” and that these statements contain an “opinion that goes beyond the purely technical.” In this respect, the State contends that although Mr. Usón was expressing himself in a manner protected by the constitutional right of freedom of expression, “he also [was assuming] full responsibility for all of his statements.” 20. The State also claims that the military tribunals were those “competent” to try this case, since “when the insult is committed against the National Armed Forces or one of its units, it is a crime of a military nature, which shall be heard by the Criminal Military Tribunals. Thus, the Sala de Casación Penal [Chamber of Criminal Cassation] established that the crime for which proceedings were instituted against Brigadier General Francisco Usón was of a military nature; it was therefore up to the aforementioned tribunals to hear the case; in this way the argument of incompetence was rejected.” 21. With respect to the claims of violations of the right to humane treatment of the alleged victim, the State argues that the Tribunal Militar Primero de Ejecución de Sentencias [First Military Tribunal for the Execution of Judgments] “makes regular visits as frequently as the law demands in order to learn first hand about the particular problems of each inmate, and grants them the opportunity, in their personal interview with the Judge, to explain all that is necessary.” The State maintains that Mr. Usón “has not made said statements before the Tribunal.” The State also points out that “any center of military inmates has a routine of activities for them; they must be followed without distinctions” and that all these centers prohibit the entry of minors “outside of the programmed hours.” These prison rules, according to the State, “do not constitute an infringement on humane treatment, nor are they followed using cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.” The State argues that “they are rules whose basis is the goal of guaranteeing the welfare of the entire inmate population.” 22. Finally, the State asserts that the alleged victim is currently “receiving decent treatment, according to his human condition,” while he is serving his sentence. IV. ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence 23. The Commission notes that Venezuela is a party to the Convention since August 9, 1997, date on which it deposited its instrument of ratification. 24. Pursuant to article 44 of the American Convention and article 23 of the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR, the petitioner, as a attorney who represents the alleged victim, has standing to file a petition before the Commission concerning the alleged violations of the rights provided for by the American Convention. The alleged victim, Francisco Usón Ramírez, is an individual with respect to whom the State undertook the commitment to guarantee rights provided for by the Convention. Therefore, the Commission is ratione personae competent to examine the petition. 4