28. To the contrary, the Court notes that the facts relating to the asylum and request for the extradition of Ms. J. do fall within the factual framework described by the Commission in its Merits 21 Report. Therefore, the Court finds the State’s objection in this regard inadmissible. 29. The State opposed the Court examining the alleged violation of Article 5(4) of the Convention, owing to the presumed failure to segregate Ms. J., who was being tried, from those inmates who had already been convicted during her detention in the Miguel Castro Castro Prison. Peru argued that the “Ms. J.’s entries into, transfers between, and departures from [the Miguel Castro Castro and the Santa Mónica Prisons], as well as the detention conditions that she experienced, do not form part of this case.” According to the State, “the factual framework of the case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison has already been examined and decided by the InterAmerican Court in the respective judgment, which generates an identity of facts with those that correspond to the case of J. The fact that the Commission seeks to claim another right that was not discussed in the case of the Castro Castro Prison is inadmissible.” Peru indicated that, since “the socalled triple identity of person, facts and legal grounds exists [in the two cases], this constitutes international res judicata,” so that the Court should not rule on the alleged violation of Article 5(4) of the Convention. According to the State, “[t]he contrary would signify incurring in the cause for inadmissibility of Article 47[d] of the American Convention and 33 of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission.” 30. The State did not present this argument as a preliminary objection. Despite this, the Court recalls that the provisions contained in Article 47(d) of the American Convention signifies that a petition will be inadmissible when it is substantially the same as one previously examined by the Commission or by another international organization. This Court has established that the phrase “substantially the same” means that the cases must be of an identical nature. To this end, three elements are required: that the parties are the same, that the purpose is the same, and that the legal grounds are identical. 22 31. In this case, the State is not arguing the identical nature of these three elements with regard to the entire case, but only with regard to one of the violations alleged by the Inter-American Commission and the representative concerning the detention conditions of Ms. J. in the Miguel Castro Castro Prison. In this regard, the Court notes the identical nature of the parties in both cases, because Ms. J. was a victim of the facts examined by this Court in that case, and some of the facts of the instant case coincide with the situations described, in general, in the case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison. However, in that case, no violation of Article 5(4) of the American Convention was examined based on the failure to separate Ms. J. from those inmates who had been convicted during the time she was detained in that prison. In the case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, this Court referred to certain contextual facts regarding detention conditions in Peru at the time of the facts, and ruled on the detention conditions of the victims when they were transferred from the 23 (to the “Santa Mónica de Chorrillos” Prison in the case of Ms. J.). Miguel Castro Castro Prison However, in that case, it was not alleged that Article 5(4) of the Convention had been violated owing to the detention conditions of the victims before the attacks that occurred in the Miguel Castro Castro Prison from May 6 to 9, 1992, and the Court did not rule on this. Therefore, the Curt concludes that it is able to rule on the alleged violation of Article 5(4) of the Convention owing to the failure to separate the presumed victim from those inmates who had been convicted during the 21 Specifically, the Commission referred to the recognition of Ms. J. as a refugee in paragraph 118 of the Merits Report, and to the extradition procedure in paragraphs 137 to 143 of this report. 22 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Preliminary objections, Judgment of November 18, 1999. Series C No. 61, para. 53, and Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of May 14, 2013. Series C No. 260, para. 31. 23 Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, paras. 197.10 and 197.13. 11