11 42. The Commission, for its part, argued that although some of the facts involved in the instant case were the same as those examined in the Neira Alegría et al. Case, the two cases concerned different people. The Commission also pointed out that the hypothesis given in Article 40.2 of its Regulations did not obtain in the instant case, as that article provided that “When two petitions deal with the same facts and persons, they shall be combined and processed in a single file.” It further argued that had the State wanted to combine the Durand and Ugarte Case with the Neira Alegría et al. Case, it could have requested joinder during the proceedings with the Commission. Not having done so, the State was now procedurally prohibited from objecting to the fact that the two cases were not joined. 43. The Court notes that the hypothesis given in Article 40.2 of the Commission’s Regulations does not obtain in the instant case. The article alludes to a duality: a) of facts and b) of persons. “Facts” refers to the behavior or event that is a violation of some human right. “Persons” has to do with the active and passive subjects of the violation, and mainly the latter, i.e., the victims. Whereas the Neira Alegría et al. Case and the Durand and Ugarte Case concern the same facts -the events at El Frontón-, the obvious difference between them has to do with the persons named as the alleged victims. 44. The Court therefore dismisses the second preliminary objection. Objection Three 45. The third objection raised by the State concerns res judicata. 46. To argue this objection, the State alleged that on January 19, 1995, the Court delivered its judgment in the Neira Alegría et al. Case (No. 10,078) and condemned the State for the same facts and matter under consideration in this case; it further argued that by virtue of the principle of non bis in idem, no international organization has jurisdiction to hear the instant case. 47. The Commission, for its part, pointed out that this objection was baseless and in no way applicable, since the judgment the Court delivered in the Neira Alegría et al. Case was not res judicata for the claimants in the Durand and Ugarte Case. It added that when a breach of the principle of non bis in idem was asserted, various givens had to be met, one being that the subjects were the same, which was not true in this case. It argued that the judgment delivered in the Neira Alegría et al. Case did not have effect “ultra partes.” 48. The Court observes that just as every individual has human rights, so must any violation of those rights be examined on an equally individual basis. The judgment delivered in one case will not influence the outcome of other cases when the persons whose rights have been violated are different, even when the facts or events that constituted the violation of rights are the same. The instant case involves facts considered in the Neira Alegría et al. Case, but violations of different persons’ rights, as the examination of the previous objection showed (supra, para. 43). The alleged victims in the instant case are Mr. Durand and Mr. Ugarte, who were not parties to the Neira Alegría et al. Case. 49. The Court therefore dismisses the third preliminary objection. Objection Five