8 parties. In this respect, the International Court of Justice in the Barcelona Traction case9 has differentiated between the rights of the shareholders of a company and those of the company itself, indicating that domestic legislation grants shareholders specific direct rights, such as those of receiving the agreed dividends, attending and voting at general meetings, and receiving part of the assets of the company when it is liquidated. 27. In the case sub judice, Argentina asserts that legal entities are not included in the American Convention and, therefore, its provisions are not applicable to them, since they do not have human rights. However, the Court observes that, in general, the rights and obligations attributed to companies become rights and obligations for the individuals who comprise them or who act in their name or representation. 28. In addition, we could recall the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties in this respect, as this Court has on several occasions10, and affirm that the interpretation alleged by the State leads to unreasonable results, because it implies removing an important group of human rights from protection by the Convention. 29. This Court considers that, although the figure of legal entities has not been expressly recognized by the American Convention, as it is in Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, this does not mean that, in specific circumstances, an individual may not resort to the inter-American system for the protection of human rights to enforce his fundamental rights, even when they are encompassed in a legal figure or fiction created by the same system of law. However, it is worth making a distinction in order to identify which situations could be examined by this Court within the framework of the American Convention. In this respect, this Court has already examined the possible violation of the rights of individuals when they are shareholders11. 30. In the case sub judice, legal file C-1099, processed before the Supreme Court of Justice, confirms that all administrative and legal recourses, with the exception of a criminal complaint and an amparo filed in 1972, at the onset of the alleged facts, 9 Cf. Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1970, p. 36, para. 47. 10 Cf., among others, Constantine et al. case, Preliminary Objections, supra note 6, paras. 75; Benjamin et al. case, Preliminary Objections, supra note 6, para. 76; Hilaire case, Preliminary Objections, supra note 6, para. 84; The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law. Advisory Opinion OC-16/99 of October 1, 1999. Series A No. 16, paras. 58, 114 and 128; Enforceability of the Right to Reply or Correction (Articles 14(1), 1(1) and 2, American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-7/86 of August 29, 1986. Series A No. 7, para. 21; Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica. Advisory Opinion OC-4/84 of January 19, 1984. Series A No. 4, para. 21; and Restrictions to the Death Penalty (Article 4(2) and 4(4), American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-3/83 of September 8, 1983. Series A No. 3., para. 48. 11 Cf. Ivcher Bronstein case. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, paras. 123, 125, 138 and 156. Similarly, communication of the Human Rights Committee No. 502/1992, Barbados, March 31, 1994; and communication of the Human Rights Committee No. 737/1997, Australia, April 30, 1997. Also, in its case Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, the European Court decided that, although there were three petitioners: the “Pine Valley” company; the “Healy Holdings” company, owner of “Pine Valley”; and Mr. Healy, the former, that is, the legal entities, were only vehicles through which Mr. Healy, in his capacity as a natural person, carried out a determined economic activity. In any case, this Court rejected the argument of the State and indicated that it was artificial to make distinctions between the petitioners in order to consider them victims of a violation of a right embodied in the European Convention. Eur. Court H.R., Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others Judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222.