52. There is no evidence that this case is pending in another international proceeding for settlement. Neither does it represent, from a substantive standpoint, a reproduction of an appeal already examined by the Commission or another international entity. Therefore, the Commission finds that this requirement has been met. d. Characterization of the facts 53. Article 47(b) of the Convention stipulates that if a petition does not state facts that tend to establish a violation of the rights guaranteed by the Convention, it shall be considered inadmissible. The petitioners allege that the State conducted military operations in the Araguaia region between 1972 and 1975, and that these operations resulted in the disappearance of 22 guerrillas. Since that time, the circumstances of the deaths of those who disappeared have not been investigated, nor have the persons involved been identified or punished, although the State has in fact acknowledged its involvement and responsibility and arranged for indemnification. 54. The petition alleges that the State violated the right of the petitioners and Brazilian society in general to obtain reliable information on the facts reported. Such a violation would emanate from two actions by the State. On the one hand, the Amnesty Act is presented as an impediment to access to the justice system and, consequently, the petitioners' and society's access to complete information on the facts and responsibilities in this case. On the other, problems in obtaining military documents relating to the facts on the grounds of national security, and the lack of evidence, etc., would preclude exercise of the right of access to information and the opportunity to bury the victims properly. All of this would violate rights enshrined in Articles 8, 13, and 25 of the Convention. 14 55. In addition, the petition characterizes the facts as a violation of the right to freedom of conscience and religion, Article 12 of the Convention, as the forced disappearances would deprive the families of the victims of the right to bury their remains in accordance with their religious convictions. 56. The State alleged that with the enactment of Law Nº 9140 of 1995 –which established a special commission with competence to investigate the disappearances, locate the bodies, and indemnify the families of those who disappeared for political reasons– further facts arose that render the petitioners' claims without substance. They allege that the aforementioned law acknowledged the State's administrative and civil responsibility, and indemnified the families of the victims. The State therefore alleges that the grounds for the petition no longer have merit. 57. The petitioners consider that indemnification is not full reparation of the violation and allege that the State cannot pretend to have made reparation, through indemnification, for the violation as a whole, as those responsible for it have yet to be identified and punished. The State, in turn, alleges that, in view of the Amnesty Act, it is impossible to investigate individual responsibility and to punish the agents of the State involved in the case. The Commission considers in this case it must examine whether the Amnesty Act enacted, where pertinent to the facts complained of, establishes a regime of impunity that would prevent the competent courts from trying and sentencing the possible perpetrators of the violations denounced. 58. The Commission considers that, at this stage of the proceedings, it cannot be stated with certainty whether the measures adopted by the State constitute "adequate reparation" for the alleged violations. In this case, it would not be possible for the Commission to determine what adequate reparation for the violations is, without first determining the existence and nature of the possible violations, which can only be determined in the merits phase. For these reasons, the Commission decides to disregard the State's position that the provisions of Article 48(b) and (c) of the Convention should apply. 14 See the following IACHR Reports: Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Peru, of June 2, 2000 (OEA/Ser. L/V/II.106, doc. 59 rev.), Chapter II, para. 215 ff; Third Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Colombia, of February 26, 1999 (OEA/Ser. L/V/II.102, doc. 9 rev.), Chapter IV, para. 345. In the context of individual cases, this principle was clearly affirmed in the following cases: Report Nº 1/99, Case 10.480 (El Salvador), published in the Annual Report of the IACHR 1998 (OEA/Ser.L/V/II.102, doc. 6 rev.); Report Nº 36/96, Case 1843 (Chile), published in the Annual Report of the IACHR 1996 (OEA/Ser.L/V/II.95, doc. 7); Report Nº 28/92, Cases 10.147, 10.181, 10.240, 10.262, 10.309, and 10.311 (Argentina) and 29/92, Cases 10.029, 10.036, 10.372, 10.373, 10.374, and 10.375 (Uruguay), published in Annual Report of the IACHR 1992-1993 (OEA/Ser.L/V/II.83, doc. 14). 9