previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization. Thus, the requirements stipulated in Articles 46(1(c) and 47(d) are satisfied. 4. Characterization of the facts 31. The Commission considers that the petitioners’ brief concerns facts that if true could constitute a violation of rights guaranteed under the Convention. 32. In effect, the Commission observes that the petitioners argue that the intellectual authors of the crimes denounced were never prosecuted. The petitioners contend that even though it was shown that the orders came from superiors, the only persons prosecuted were the five police offers who received the orders to execute the Gómez Paquiyauri brothers. The intellectual authors of the crime, who radioed the orders to execute the victims, have never been brought to justice, even through there is sufficient evidence linking them to the homicides. 33. The Commission notes in this regard that Article 1 of the American Convention on Human Rights establishes the obligation of States parties to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein to all persons subject to their jurisdiction and to ensure to them the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms. Because of the obligation to ensure the free and full exercise of the rights and freedoms recognized in the Convention, States are obligated to “prevent, investigate and punish any violation of the rights recognized by the Convention and, moreover, if possible attempt to restore the right violated and provide compensation as warranted for damages resulting from the violation.”.3 34. The obligation to investigate and punish any action that involves a violation of the rights recognized by the Convention requires that the intellectual authors of human rights violations be punished as well.4 35. Furthermore, on the matter of civil damages in the deaths of the young Emilio Moisés and Rafael Samuel Gómez Paquiyauri, the IACHR notes that on November 29, 1993, the Third Chamber of the Callao Superior Court handed down a ruling convicting the material authors of the crimes and ordering them to pay the victims’ legal heirs a total of 20,000 new soles in the form of civil damages. The Commission will give its finding on this matter in the report on the merits, where it will examine the petitioners’ allegation to the effect that the convicted police officers have not paid those civil damages and arguing that the State is responsible for payment. 36. The Commission further observes that the petition concerns the alleged extrajudicial execution of a 17-year old youth and a 14-year old boy. Exercising its authorities by virtue of the principle iura novit curia, at its own initiative the Commission is deciding to study whether the facts denounced might constitute a violation by Peru of the provisions of Article 19 of the American Convention. Exercising that same authority and at its own initiative, the Commission also decides to study whether the facts denounced could constitute a violation by Peru of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention since, as previously noted, there have been problems or omissions in the investigation into the intellectual authors of the extrajudicial executions denounced in the instant case. V. CONCLUSIONS 37. The Commission concludes that it is competent to take cognizance of this case and that the petition is admissible under Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. 3 IACtHR, Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Judgement of July 29, 1988, Series C No. 4, par.166. See IACHR, Report N° 42/99, Hugo Muñoz Sánchez, Bertila Lozano Torres, Dora Oyaque Fierro, Luis Enrique Ortiz Perea, Armando Richard Amaro Condor, Robert Edgar Teodoro Espinoza, Heráclides Pablo Meza, Felipe Flores Chipana, Marcelino Rosales Cárdenas and Juan Gabriel Mariños Figueroa (La Cantuta), Case 11.045 (Peru) paragraphs 34-38. See also IACtHR, Constitutional Court Case, judgment of September 29, 1999. Series C No. 71, para.123, and IACtHR, Blake Case, Reparations, Judgment of January 22, 1999, Series C No. 48, par. 65 4 5