13 Therefore, the State has tacitly waived the issue of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies as to these articles of its Civil Code. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the State’s preliminary objection as to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. F) SIXTH PRELIMINARY OBJECTION Duplication of international proceedings 45. The State argued that petitioners have filed duplicate requests to more than one international body, which renders the petition inadmissible in accordance with Articles 46(c) and 47(d) of the American Convention. The State maintained that, in this case, complaints with the same fact predicate and human rights legal standards and provisions were lodged with the United Nations Human Rights Committee (hereinafter “HR Committee”) and the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (hereinafter “CERD”). The State also averred that the Court has already decided the right to property of “maroon and/or indigenous people” in the case of Moiwana Community v. Suriname. 46. Article 46 of the American Convention stipulates as one of the requirements for the admission of a petition by the Commission, […] c. that the subject of the petition or communication is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement; […] and Article 47 of the American Convention renders inadmissible a petition if […] d. the petition or communication is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization. […] 47. The question of litis pendentia requires ascertaining whether “the subject” of the petition or communication is pending before another international proceeding for settlement, while res judicata arises where the petition or communication is “substantially the same” as one already studied by the Commission or by another international organization. 48. This Court has already 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 necessary, these are: that the parties are the same, that the object of the action is the same, and that the legal grounds are identical”.40 49. The petition regarding the present case was filed with the Commission on October 27, 2000. The objection made by the State has to do with submissions made before the United Nations human rights treaty bodies that range from the years 2002 through 2005. Specifically, the State pointed to: a) five “formal applications” submitted by the Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname, Stichting Sanomaro Esa, the Association of Saramaka Authorities, and the NGO Forest Peoples Programme to the CERD between December 2002 and July 2005,41 particularly, a petition filed on December 15, 2002 40 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al., supra note 13, para. 53. The State refered to: Formal Request to Initiate an Urgent Procedure to Avoid Immediate and Irreparable Harm, December 15, 2002; Additional Information, May 21, 2003; Comments on Suriname’s State Party Report (CERD/C/446/Add.1), January 26, 2004; Request for the Initiation of an Urgent Action and a Follow Up Procedure 41