2. Deadline for lodging the petition 35. Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention states that for a petition to be admissible, it must be lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the party alleging violation of his rights was notified of the final judgment. This rule guarantees legal certainty and stability once a decision has been adopted. 36. In the instant case, the Commission notes that the decision of the Supreme Court of Argentina on the appeal (recurso de queja) filed by Mr. Kimel’s counsel against the conviction handed down by the National Chamber of Appeals for Criminal and Correctional Matters in and for the Federal Capital was communicated to the alleged victim on September 19, 2000. Therefore, the petition received by the Executive Secretariat of the IACHR on December 6, 2000, was lodged in a timely manner and the requirement contained in Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention has been met. 3. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 37. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the petition is pending before another international proceeding for settlement or that it is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization. Therefore, the requirements established in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention have been met. 4. Nature of the alleged violations 38. The Commission considers that, if proven, the petitioners’ allegations regarding the alleged violations of the victim’s rights to a fair trial and freedom of thought and expression, could constitute violations of the rights enshrined in Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 of said instrument. Furthermore, there is nothing to indicate that the petition is manifestly groundless or out of order. The Commission, therefore, considers that the requirements established in Article 47(b) and (c) of the American Convention have been met. 39. Further, although the petitioners have not alleged it expressly, in accordance with the principle of iura novit curia, which obliges international mechanisms to apply all pertinent legal norms even when not invoked by the parties, 8 the Commission will, to the extent applicable, evaluate the facts alleged in the light of Article 25 of the American Convention, which establishes the right to judicial protection. V. CONCLUSION 40. The Commission concludes that it is competent to hear this case and that the petition is admissible under the provisions of Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. 8 PCIJ, Lotus Case, Judgment of September 7, 1927, Ser. A Nº 10, p. 31.