5 29. According to Article 46.1 of the Convention, for a petition to be admitted, it must be lodged within the stipulated time frame of six months from the date that the party alleging the violation of his rights was notified of the final judgment at the national level. 30. In this case, according to the information provided by the petitioners and not refuted by the State, the judgment of the National Supreme Court of Justice concerning the extraordinary remedy was transmitted to Mr. Hernández in March 1998, and he lodged his petition on June 30, 1998; he was thereby in compliance with the requirement stipulated in Article 46.1.b of the American Convention. 3. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 31. Article 46.1.c states that the admission of a petition is subject to the requirement that the subject not be “pending in another international proceeding for settlement,” and Article 47.d of the Convention stipulates that the Commission shall consider inadmissible any petition that is “substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization.” In the case of record, the parties have not alleged any of these circumstances of inadmissibility, nor have any emerged from the proceedings. 4. Characterization of the alleged facts 32. Article 47.b of the American Convention declares inadmissible any petition that does not state facts that establish a violation of the rights guaranteed by the Convention. In this case, it is not the Commission’s place at this stage of the proceedings to decide whether or not the alleged violations of the American Convention took place. The IACHR conducted a prima facie evaluation and determined that the petition makes accusations that, if proven, could tend to establish possible violations of the rights guaranteed by the Convention. 33. From the information and allegations of the petitioners, the Commission finds that Mr. José Luis Hernández had been deprived of liberty for over two years: the first year and a half in a local jail, under allegedly unacceptable conditions of detention. They allege that these conditions had been brought to the attention of the authorities on several occasions without obtaining, according to the petitioners, a timely response. It furthermore observes that Mr. Hernández had been diagnosed with meningitis while he was in preventive detention under the care of the State and, according to the petitioners, despite repeated complaints lodged to obtain medical attention for Mr. Hernández, he did not receive the care that his health condition required, leaving him with permanent physical and mental sequelae. The Commission considers that, if the petitioners’ allegations are proven, they could establish violations of Articles 5 and 7 of the American Convention, as well as 7 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. 34. As to the civil suit for damages and injuries, the State has indicated that there were no irregularities in the procedure and that Mr. Hernández enjoyed all judicial guarantees. It argues that the judges that heard the complaint, both in the lower court and subsequent higher courts, dismissed the suit, in compliance with the law, because it had been lodged after the statute of limitations had expired. Thus, it alleges that the petitioners’ intent is for the Commission to overturn a domestic ruling that was unfavorable to Mr. Hernández; it has therefore requested that the petition be declared inadmissible. In this regard, as indicated in the preceding paragraph, the matter dealt with in this petition is not limited to a claim for damages and injuries, but also to a series of conditions of detention that existed prior to the diagnosis of the illness contracted by the alleged victim and to subsequent consequences. The Commission considers that the relationship between the different claims and denunciations lodged with various authorities requires an analysis on the merits with respect to Articles 8 and 25 as they relate to Article 1.1 of that same instrument. 35. The Commission furthermore concludes that, from the information provided by the parties, it lacks sufficient evidence to infer the supposed establishment of violations of Articles 11, 17, and 24 of the Convention by the Argentine State.