8 the Convention establishes that for a petition to be admitted by the Commission, that “the subject of the petition or communication is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement,” and Article 47(d) of the Convention establishes that the Commission shall consider inadmissible any petition or communication when “it is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization.” 37. The Inter-American Court has established that: [t]he phrase “substantially the same” signifies that there should be identity between the cases. In order for this identity to exist, the presence of three elements is required, these are: that the parties are the same, that the object of the action is the same, and that the legal grounds are identical. In the instant case, there is no duplication of proceedings.9 38. For its part, the Commission has maintained that in order to consider that there is duplication of proceedings or international res judicata in a case, the petition must be under consideration or must have been decided 10 by an international organization competent to adopt decisions regarding the specific facts contained in the petition, and to adopt measures aimed at the effective resolution of whatever dispute is being examined. 11 Based on this norm, the Commission considers that the Working Group mentioned above does not belong in the same category of international organs as those whose mandate could produce the duplication referred to in Articles 46(1)(c) y 47(1)(d) of the American Convention. In fact, it is a mechanism that can bring up specific cases of disappearances with the States but it does not have a case system for the purpose of rendering decisions that adjudicate specific responsibilities. Furthermore, the State has not provided background information that would make it possible to establish that the situation of the alleged victim in the instant case has been resolved by the aforementioned organ. Therefore, the Commission considers that the requirements established in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention have been met. 4. Characterization of the alleged facts 39. Based on the facts presented by the parties and on the nature of the matter under examination, the Commission finds that, in the instant case, the allegations made by the petitioners regarding the lack of judicial resolution of the facts surrounding the disappearance of César Gustavo Garzón Guzmán presumably carried out by agents of the State, as well as the lack of due diligence on the part of the State to investigate and sanction the responsible individuals, could characterize possible violations of the rights to life, to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection enshrined in Articles 4(1), 8(1) and 25 in connection to Article 1(1) of the American Convention. Likewise, under the principle of iura novit curia, it is the responsibility of the Commission to establish the possible responsibility of the State for the alleged violation of the rights to recognition of juridical personality and to personal liberty established in Articles 3 and 7 of the Convention in connection to Article 1(1) of the same treaty. 40. Likewise, under the principle of iura novit curia, it is the responsibility of the Commission to establish the possible responsibility of the State for the alleged violation of Article 1 of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons due to the continuing lack of IA Court H.R., Case Baena Ricardo et al. Preliminary Exceptions. Judgment dated November 18, 1999. Series C No. 61, para. 53. 9 10 Cfr. IACHR. Report No. 89/05, Petition 12.103, Inadmissibility, Cecilia Rosa Núñez Chipana, Peru, October 24, 2005, para. 37. IACHR Report No. 96/98, Petition 11.828, Admissibility, Peter Blaine, Jamaica, December 17, 1998, para. 40. IA Court H.R., Case Baena Ricardo et al. Preliminary Exceptions. Judgment dated November 18, 1999. Series C No. 61, para. 53. 11