benefits, it is due to the existence of a claim against the Argentine State for the same facts. In response to the petitioner’s argument that Law No. 24,411 contemplates only those cases of forced disappearance followed by death, or that continue as disappearances, the State indicates that in the cases of illegal detentions the appropriate path for reparations is Law No. 24,043. It also notes that Law No. 25,914 provides an adequate response to those children who were born in captivity or who were deprived of their liberty along with their parents. 23. Therefore, based on the progress in the judicial cases mentioned, the State concludes that “it has not violated the right to an investigation for the crimes against humanity suffered by the Larrabeiti Yáñez siblings and their parents.” It also concludes that the reparation laws are an adequate response to the Larrabeiti Yáñez siblings’ claims, and are respectful of the criteria of objectivity, reasonableness, and effectiveness, thus, as the possibility exists that they will receive adequate reparation, the request for the IACHR to declare that the State has violated that right is out of order. III. ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence and duplication of procedures and international res judicata Competence Ratione personae: Competence Ratione loci: Competence Ratione temporis: Competence Ratione materiae: Duplication of procedures and international res judicata: Yes Yes Yes Yes, American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (deposited instrument of ratification of the OAS Charter on April 10, 1956); American Convention on Human Rights (deposited instrument of ratification on September 5, 1984); InterAmerican Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons (deposited instrument February 28, 1996); and Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (deposited instrument March 31, 1989) No 24. With respect to competence ratione loci, the Commission clarifies that while the facts alleged took place in the territory of three states in the context of Operation Condor, the petition before the IACHR was filed exclusively against the State of Argentina. Therefore, in the instant report the Commission will not get into an analysis of the possible international responsibility for the events that occurred in Uruguay and Chile, without prejudice to effectuating determinations of fact with regard to events in those countries in order to understand in their entirety the events suffered by the alleged victims and the complete scope of the international responsibility of the State of Argentina. 25. In relation to competence ratione temporis and ratione materiae, the Commission will analyze the facts of the instant case in light of the obligations established in the American Convention, the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons (“IACFDP”), and the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (“IACPPT”) with respect to those facts that occurred after their entry into force or that continued after the entry into force of those instruments for the State of Argentina. The Commission will analyze the facts consummated prior to the entry into force of the American Convention for the State in light of the obligations derived from the American Declaration. In this respect, the Commission recalls that the InterAmerican Court explicitly recognized the binding nature of the American Declaration on indicating that “Articles 1(2)(b) and 20 of the Commission's Statute define the competence of that body with respect to the human rights enunciated in the Declaration, with the result that to this extent the American Declaration is for these States a source of international obligations related to the Charter of the Organization.”4 I/A Court HR, Interpretation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man within the Framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-10/89, July 14, 1989. Series A No. 10, para. 45. 4