29. The Commission considers that the events alleged by the petitioners in the complaint under examination involve the alleged violation of basic rights such as the right to life and humane treatment, which in domestic law are prosecutable offenses. Therefore, it is the homicide and injury trial in the civil jurisdiction of the 27th Criminal Court of Lima against Antonio Mauricio Evangelista Pinedo, Sergeant Second Class of the Peruvian Army, that must be considered to determine whether or not domestic remedies were exhausted here. 30. Those judicial proceedings concluded with a ruling on September 11, 1995, through the 27th Criminal Court of Lima, deciding to definitively table the trial. The IACHR therefore feels that domestic remedies were exhausted. 31. As a result, the Commission rejects the State’s argument that domestic remedies were not exhausted in seeking compensation for the events denounced. 2. Deadline for presentation 32. The Commission observes that the decision that exhausted domestic remedies, as explained above, was handed down on September 11, 1995, while the complaint was lodged on February 20, 1996. Therefore, the requirement established in Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention has been met. 3. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 33. The Commission understands that the matter in the petition is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement and is not substantially the same as a petition previously examined by this or another international organization. Therefore, the requirements established in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the American Convention have been met. 4. Characterization of the events 34. The Commission considers that the petition refers to events that, if confirmed, could constitute a violation of the rights to life, humane treatment, a fair trial, and judicial protection enshrined in Articles 4, 5, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, as well as the obligation to observe the rights contained in Article 1(1) of the Convention. The Commission also observes that the criminal proceedings under domestic law were tabled based on amnesty laws Nº 26479 and 25492. In exercise of its authority stemming from the principle of iura novit curia, the Commission decides of its own initiative to study whether or not the denounced events could be a violation by the Peruvian State of the provisions of Article 2 of the American Convention. V. CONCLUSIONS 35. The Commission concludes that it is competent to hear this petition and that it is admissible, in keeping with Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. 5 In cases where it has been argued to the Commission that a given administrative-contentious remedy available under the domestic law of another State Party to the American Convention must be exhausted as part of the domestic remedies, the IACHR has repeatedly indicated that: “As regards exhaustion of the contentious-administrative jurisdiction, the Commission has already indicated that this type of proceeding is exclusively a mechanism for supervising the administrative activity of the State aimed at obtaining compensation for damages caused by the abuse of authority. In general, this process is not an adequate mechanism, on its own, to make reparation for human rights violations; consequently, it is not necessary for it to be exhausted when, as in this case, there is another means for securing both reparation for the harm done and the prosecution and punishment demanded.” IACHR, 2000 Annual Report, Report Nº 57/00 – La Granja, Ituango, Case 12.050 (Colombia) para. 41. See also: IACHR, 1995 Annual Report, Report Nº 15/95, para. 71; 1999 Annual Report, Report Nº 61/99, para. 51; and 1997 Annual Report, Report Nº 5/98, para. 63. 5