3. Duplication of procedure and international res judicata 51. The State alleges that the instant petition reproduces the petition in Case 11,784 MarcelinoHanríquezet al., which was decided in Report No. 73/00, considering that the subject matter and petitioners are identical.The petitioners argue that in that case the claim was over a violation of the right to equality, as Law No. 24,043 does not contemplate reparations for the detentions ordered by the judicial branch, and that this petition is a claim for said violation for the failure to make reparation for the “release-undersurveillance” regime under unwritten orders of the Executive. They argue that there is no duplication because the facts giving rise to the violation are distinct. 52. In this regard, and to determine the existence of duplication in the matters before it, the IACHR has indicated “that a prohibited instance of duplication involves, in principle, the same person, the same legal claims and guarantees, and the same facts adduced in support thereof.” 11 53. In this respect, the Commission notes that the alleged victim of the instant petition is not the same as those in case 11,784, which was brought on behalf of the Hanríquez siblings. In addition, it notes that said case has to do with the alleged discrimination due to lack of reparation for the detention under the orders of the Judiciary branch. The instant case raises the right to reparation for “release-under surveillance” and threats under the authority of the security forces, and in that sense there are distinctions as between the factual and legal claims. 54. In view of this, the Commission considers that this petition is different from Case 11,784 in the subject matter and in the alleged victims. Accordingly, it concludes that it is not appropriate to declare duplication of the procedure in relation to Case 11,784 and that the petition has not been previously decided by the IACHR. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the exceptions provided for in Article 46(1)(d) and Article 47(d) of the American Convention do not apply. 4. Characterization of the facts alleged 55. In the instant petition, several arguments have been presented on the alleged violation of the rights to judicial guarantees, equality before the law, and judicial protection, enshrined in Articles 8, 24, and 25 of the American Convention. In particular, the petitioners argue that the administrative decision of the Secretariat for Human Rights of the Ministry of Interior, of 1996, in the context of Law 24,043,and the judicial proceeding to challenge it, which culminated in June 2000, were unfair and discriminatory, as reparations were recognized for other similar cases. In support of their argument, the petitioners cite domestic case-law by which reparation was made for the situation of “release-under surveillance” emanating from illegal detention. For its part, the State alleges that the situation of the alleged victim is not covered in Law No. 24,043; that due process guarantees were not violated in the judicial proceeding; and that the petition seeks to assign the Commission the function of a court of appeals. 56. It should be indicated that neither the American Convention nor the IACHR’s Rules of Procedure require the petitioner to identify the specific rights alleged to have been violated by the State in the matter submitted to the Commission, although petitioners may do so. It is up to the Commission, based on the case-law of the system, to determine in its admissibility reports what provision or provisions of the relevant inter-American instruments apply and whose violation could be established if the facts alleged are proven by sufficient evidence. 57. The Commission, without getting into issues of domestic law, takes into account that as regards the scope of Law 24,043, over time the Argentine courts have developed approaches in the case law to the broad interpretation of that statute so as to make reparation for other types of restrictions on liberty, imposed with either a written or unwritten order from the Executive. Given that this petition relates to the objective application of Law 24.043, the Commission considers that the arguments presented need to be examined in the merits phase. 11IACHR, Report No. 96/98, Case 11,827, Inadmissibility, Peter Blaine, Jamaica, December 17, 1998.