unrelated in time and place shall be separated and processed as separate cases."22 The Commission has not interpreted this provision to require that the facts, victims and violations set forth in a petition strictly coincide in time and place in order to allow processing as a single case. 41. Rather, the Commission has processed individual cases dealing with numerous victims who have alleged violations of their human rights occurring at different moments and in different locations so long as all of the victims allege violations arising out of the same treatment. Thus, the Commission may process as a single case the claims of various victims alleging violations arising out of the application of legislation or a pattern or practice to each of the victims, without regard to the time and place in which the victims received this similar treatment. The Commission not only has refused to separate such cases for processing but has also accumulated separate cases with such characteristics into single cases for processing.23 42. Because the petitioners have set forth facts which tend to demonstrate that the victims in this case suffered violations as a part of an alleged pattern and practice of political persecution against members of the Patriotic Union, there exists the necessary connection between the numerous individuals and facts identified to allow them to be processed together. The case is therefore appropriately admitted in its present form. C. ndividualization of the victims 43. The State has argued, on the other hand, that this case is not admissible as presented, because it relates to a broad phenomenon and therefore is excessively general. The State asserts that the Commission does not have competence to address "generic complaints" but rather may only review cases which have been "adequately individualized."24 44. In support of this argument, the State first cites the technical requirements set forth in Article 32 of the Regulations of the Commission. Article 32(b) provides that a petition addressed to the Commission shall include: an account of the act or situation that is denounced, specifying the place and date of the alleged violations and, if possible, the name of the victims of such violations as well as that of any official that might have been appraised of the act or situation that was denounced. 45. The lists of victims provided by the petitioners in this case include the names of each victim and the date and place in which that victim allegedly suffered a human rights violation as well as an indication of the group allegedly responsible for the act committed. The petitioners thus provided information adequate to comply with the technical requirements set forth in Article 32(b) of the Regulations of the Commission. The Commission forwarded this information to the State in the form in which it was received from the petitioners. 46. The State next argues that the Commission must refuse to admit the case because of its "collective nature" on the basis of precedent established by the Commission in relation to a set of claims it received regarding grave violations of the rights of labor union activists in Colombia. The claims relating to the labor union activists were apparently presented to the Commission in a manner similar to that used by the petitioners in the present case. 47. The Commission determined that it should not process the set of claims relating to the labor union activists in one case through the individual petition mechanism, finding the group of cases to be "beyond the scope" of that mechanism. The Commission therefore simply provided information and its observations regarding these cases in the Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Colombia.25 22 Regulations of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Article 40. 23 See, e.g., Report No. 24/82 (Chile), March 8, 1982, Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 1981-1982, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.547, Doc. 6 rev. 1, 20 September 1982 (finding violations of the human rights of 50 individuals who were deported from Chile under emergency legislation). 24 Government Response of June 3, 1994; Government Response of November 28, 1994. 25 OEA/Ser.L/V/II.84, Doc. 39 rev., October 14, 1993 at 202 [hereinafter Second Report on Colombia]. 7