Convention, in relation to articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. Thus, the requirements under Article 47(b) of the Convention have been met. The Commission should note here that the information supplied by the petitioners does not state facts that tend to establish a violation of the right to a name, protected by Article 18 of the Convention. 54. If a forced disappearance is proven, then this would also constitute violations of the right to recognition before the law and the right to life.26 Therefore, in application of the principle jura novit curia, in the merits phase the IACHR will examine whether the rights protected under articles 3 and 4 of the American Convention have been violated, in relation to the general obligation to respect and ensure the protected rights, provided for in Article 1(1) of the American Convention, inasmuch as those articles are implied by the description of the facts set forth in the complaint, although not explicitly invoked by the petitioners.27 55. It is worth noting that on previous occasions,28 the Inter-American Commission has commented on the impediments that the next of kin of disappeared victims encounter in seeking the kind of investigation that will establish the whereabouts of the disappeared. These obstacles are evidence of a general pattern that El Salvador follows where cases of this nature are involved. V. CONCLUSIONS 56. The Commission concludes that this petition is admissible based on Article 46.2 (b and c) of the American Convention; that the Commission has competence to examine the complaint for possible violations of articles 5, 7, 8, 17, 19 and 25, in relation to articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention, in accordance with articles 28 to 37 and 39 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure; by virtue of the principle jura novit curia, the Commission will also examine the case for possible violations of articles 3 and 4 of the Convention, in relation to articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. The Commission also concludes that the petition is inadmissible in relation to the alleged violation of Article 18 of the Convention. 57. Based on the foregoing arguments of fact and of law and without prejudging the merits of the case, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS DECIDES: 1. To declare the present petition admissible with respect to articles 5, 7, 8, 17, 19 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. 2. To declare the petition admissible, in application of the jure novit curiaprinciple, as regards Articles 3 and 4 of the American Convention, in relation to articles 1(1) and 2 of the same treaty. 3. To declare that the present petition is inadmissible with respect to Article 18 of the American Convention. 26 See Report No. 101/01, Case 10,247 et al., Extrajudicial executions and forced disappearances,October 11, 2001, paragraph 230, and I/A Court H.R., Castillo Páez Case, Judgment of November 3, 1998, Series C No. 34, paragraph 66. 27 See Report No. 11/05, Admissibility, Gregoria Herminia, Serapio Cristián, Julia Inés Contreras, El Salvador, February 23, 2005. 28 See Report No. 31/01, Case 12,132, Admissibility, Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz, El Salvador, February 23, 2005; Report No. 56/05, Admissibility, Ana Julia and Carmelina Mejía Ramírez, El Salvador, October 12, 2005; Report No. 53/05, Admissibility, José Rubén Rivera, El Salvador, October 12, 2005; Report No. 11/05, Admissibility, Gregoria Herminia, Serapio Cristián and Julia Inés Contreras, El Salvador, February 23, 2008; Report No.11/08, Admissibility, Emelinda Lorena Hernández, El Salvador, March 5, 2005, and Report No. 10/08, Admissibility, Santos Ernesto Salinas, El Salvador, March 5, 2008. 11