possible violation of rights under the Convention; they are not obligated to name the specific articles they consider violated. 15 44. In accordance with this rule and by applying the principle iura novit curia 16, and in conformity with the past position taken by the Commission and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on matters raising the mandatory death penalty, the Commission further considers that the imposition of mandatory death penalty on Mr. Cadogan could constitute possible violations of Articles 4(1), 4 (2), 5(1), 5(2) and 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention 17. 45. Based upon the information provided by the Petitioners, and without prejudging the merits of the matter, the Commission finds that the petition contains factual allegations that, if proved, tend to establish violations of the rights guaranteed by Article 8 of the American Convention, as well as Articles 4(1), 4(2), 5(1), 5(2) in connection with the State’s obligations under 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the Petitioners’ claims are not precluded from consideration under Article 47(b) or (c) of the Convention or Article 34 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. V. CONCLUSIONS 46. Having examined the present petition, the Commission concludes that it is competent to consider it and finds that the petition is admissible in light of the claims raised with respect to article 8. In keeping with the principle of iura curia novit, and given the Commission’s jurisprudence on the application of the mandatory death penalty, the Commission will in the merits phase analyze the possible application of Articles 4(1), 4(2), 5(1), 5(2), in relation with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention regarding the petitioner’s conviction of mandatory death penalty. The Commission concludes likewise to inform the parties of this decision, and to proceed with its publication and its inclusion in it’s the Annual Report it will submit to the General Assembly of the OAS. 47. Based on the foregoing arguments of fact and of law set forth above, and without prejudging the merits of the case. THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS DECIDES: 1. To declare the instant case admissible regarding the alleged violations of Mr. DaCosta Cadogan rights protected by Articles 4(1), 4(2), 5(1), 5(2), 8, in relation with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention. 2. To notify the parties of this decision; 3. To continue with the examination of the case; and 15 IACHR, Case 11.812, Gabriel Lastra Pedrero (Mexico), Report Nº 24/99, Annual Report 1998 § 22; I/A Court H.R., Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 1, 2001, Ser. C Nº 82 (2001) § 39-42 16 I/A Court H.R., Godínez Cruz Case. Judgment of 20 January 1989. Series C No. 5 (1989) § 172. Cf. I/A Court H.R., Durand and Ugarte Case. Judgment of 16 August 2000. Series C No. 68 (2000) § 76; and I/A Court H.R.,Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case. Judgment of May 30, 1999 17 The past practice of the Commission regarding mandatory death penalty included establishing violations of Articles 4(1), 5(1), 5(2), 8(1) in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention. Cf. Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case, supra note 20 § 88; See also I/A Court of H.R., Case of Boyce et al., supra note 11 § 47; I/A Court H.R., Case of Raxcacó Reyes, Judgment of September 15, 2005, Series C No. 133 § 91e); IACHR, Case 12.023Desmond McKenzie and al. (Jamaica), Report Nº 41/00, Annual Report 1999, see § 3, 204-206, 209 and 211; IACHR, Case 11.743, Rudolph Baptiste (Grenada) Report Nº 38/00, Annual Report 2000 § 126-128; IACHR, Case 12.275, Aitken (Jamaica), Report Nº 58/02, Annual Report 2002 § 109; I/A Court H.R., Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case, supra note 20 §101-108 and 211; I/A Court H. R., Case of Raxcacó Reyes. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 133 8