October 31, 1994 and received at the Secretariat on November 2, 1994. The Commission thus concludes that the petition meets the requirement of timely filing. c. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 41. Article 46(1)(c) sets forth that the admission of a petition is subject to the requirement that the subject “is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement,” and Article 47(d) of the Convention stipulates that the Commission shall not admit a petition which “is substantially the same as one previously studied by” it “or by another international organization.” In the present case, the parties have not claimed and the proceedings do not indicate the existence of either of these circumstances of inadmissibility. d. Characterization of the facts alleged 42. Article 47(b) of the American Convention provides that allegations which do not state facts tending to establish a violation shall not be admitted. In this regard, the Commission finds that the facts alleged could raise issues with respect to the protections set forth in Article 8 of the Convention concerning the legality of evidence and the means through which it is obtained. Further, and taking into account the principle of jura novit curia, in its decision on the merits the Commission will specifically address the requirement under Article 8, as well as Article 25, that any person accused of a crime be tried and heard within a reasonable time. The facts alleged also raise issues with respect to the obligations set forth in Article 1(1) of the Convention. Insofar as the facts alleged to have predated Argentina’s ratification of the Convention are concerned, if shown to be true, these could tend to establish violations of the right to due process under Articles XXV and XXVI of the American Declaration. 43. With respect to the allegations raised by the petitioners concerning Article 10 of the Convention, the Commission finds that they fail to state facts tending to show a violation. Article 10 refers to the right of any person “to be compensated in accordance with the law in the event that he has been sentenced by a final judgment through a miscarriage of justice.” In the present matter, Mr. Grande was not sentenced through a final judgment; rather, all charges against him were definitively dismissed. The decision in question was not taken as to the merits of his innocence or guilt, but as to whether to continue the prosecution or dismiss it. Even assuming the corresponding claims are true, they could not constitute a violation of this provision. 44. The Commission finds in the present case that the petitioner has stated claims concerning alleged violations of the right to judicial protection and guarantees, which, if consistent with other requirements and shown to be true, could tend to establish the violation of rights protected under Articles 8, 25 and 1(1) of the American Convention. To the extent that it may be necessary, the Commission shall also review Articles XXV and XXVI of the American Declaration in its examination of the merits. V. CONCLUSIONS 45. The Commission concludes that it is competent to take cognizance of the instant case and that the petition is admissible, pursuant to Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. 46. Based on the factual and legal arguments set forth above, and without prejudging the merits of the case, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, DECIDES: 8