compliance with the requirement for timely presentation of the petition is intrinsically linked to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, and therefore it has been met. 4 3. Duplication of proceedings and international res judicata 33. Article 46.1.c of the Convention says that admission of a petition requires “that the subject of the petition or communication is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement,” and Article 47.d of the Convention stipulates that the Commission shall consider inadmissible any petition that is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization. From the information supplied by the petitioner, the IACHR notes that on April 11, 2007, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (“Working Group”) issued an opinion in which it said that the detention of Jorge Marcial Tzompaxtle Tecpile, Gerardo Tzompaxtle Tecpile, and Gustavo Robles López was arbitrary, and called upon the State “to take the necessary measures to remedy the situation in accordance with the norms and principles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.” The State has not alleged the duplication of proceedings or international res judicata. 34. In order to consider that a situation of duplication or international res judicata exists in a case, besides the identity of the subjects, the object, and the intent, it is required that the petition is being considered, or has been decided, by an international body with competence to adopt decisions concerning the specific facts contained in the petition, and measures for the effective resolution of the dispute involved. 5 35. In the present case, the IACHR notes that according to its regulations, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established by resolution 1991/42 as a Special Procedure, and fulfills the mandate of investigating cases of deprivation of liberty imposed arbitrarily. 6 Furthermore, the mandate of the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights in this case derives from a conventional source, the American Convention on Human Rights. 36. In accordance with the above, the Commission finds that this case does not refer only to the arbitrary detention of the alleged victims, but also to the alleged violation of other rights. The Working Group was unable to pronounce on these alleged violations, as they fall outside its competence. In addition, the Commission considers that possible violations of due process were not subject to review by the Working Group, since some of the decisions questioned were issued after the Working Group’s pronouncement. Indeed, the Working Group issued its opinion in April 2007, one year and a half before the final decision that ordered the immediate release of the alleged victims (October 2008). During this period, as alleged by the petitioner, the reported violations to judicial protection, fair trial and humane treatment of the alleged victims persisted, in addition to the continuing arbitrary detention. 37. Therefore, the IACHR notes that given the mandate of the abovementioned Working Group regarding allegations of arbitrary detention, and taking into account the alleged facts that occurred after the publication of the Working Group’s Opinion, the present petition has a distinct purpose and intent as compared to the one presented before the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. In this regard, the Commission considers that there are no grounds for considering the petition inadmissible based on Articles 46.1.c and 47.d of the Convention and Article 33 of the IACHR Rules of Procedure. 4. Nature of the allegations 38. To rule on a petition’s admissibility, the Commission must decide whether the facts described in it would tend to establish a violation, as provided in Article 47.b of the American Convention, and whether the petition is “manifestly groundless or obviously out of order,” as provided in Article 47.c. At this stage of the 4 IACHR, Report No. 46/15, Petition 315-01. Cristina Britez Arce. Argentina. July 28, 2015, para. 47. See, for example, IACHR, Report Nº 96/98 (Admissibility), Petition 11.827, Peter Blaine, December 17, 1998, para. 42; IACHR, Report on Inadmissibility 89/05 of October 24, 2005. Petition 12.103, Cecilia Rosana Nuñez Chipana, Venezuela; IACHR, Report Nº 01/09 (Admissibility), Petition 1491-05, Benito Antonio Barrios et al, January 17, 2009, para. 66. 5 6 See UN Commission on Human Rights. Available at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Detention/Pages/WGADIndex.aspx