expression “substantially the same” means that there should be identity between the cases. In order for this identity to exist, the presence of three elements is required, namely: that the parties are the same, that the object of the action is the same and that the legal grounds are identical. 31 20. In this case, the State referred to WGAD Opinion 66/2017, adopted on October 16, 2017, and filed this objection considering that said opinion addresses the same facts and matters as those contained in the instant case. 21. In this regard, the Court notes that: a) the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the Inter-American Court are bodies of a different nature, which make decisions of a different nature, especially in the area of reparations for the damage caused by human rights violations; b) the WGAD’s opinion does not have the same factual basis as the one in the instant case. Indeed, some facts alleged by the Commission and the representatives occurred after the WGAD’s resolution, and several factual and legal arguments presented by the representatives in this case were not analyzed by the WGAD in Opinion 66/2017 32 (supra para. 18), and c) the Court makes its decisions based on the treaties of the Inter-American Human Rights System, while the WGAD analyzes the responsibility of States based on instruments of the United Nations Universal System. 33 Therefore, for these reasons, it follows that the rule on international duplication of proceedings established in Article 47(d) of the American Convention was not violated. 22. In view of the foregoing considerations, the Court dismisses this preliminary objection. B. Failure to exhaust domestic remedies B.1. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 23. The State argued that the alleged victims and their representatives did not exhaust domestic remedies because, in this case, the domestic courts have not ruled on the appeal filed against the conviction of May 12, 2022, handed down against Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz (supra para. 10). It added that, after exhausting this remedy, the alleged victims would still have the remedy of direct amparo. It emphasized that this argument referred to the alleged violations of due process in the criminal proceedings and to the alleged acts of torture. It also pointed out that the delay in the criminal case is not attributable to the State, and therefore there is no exception to the exhaustion of domestic remedies for an unwarranted delay in the decision on the aforementioned remedies. 24. In relation to the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, it argued that this instrument does not establish exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies, as does the American Convention in Article 46, and that the investigation into alleged acts of torture officially concluded on May 21, 2021, that is, on a date subsequent to the filing of the initial petition and the issuance of the Admissibility and Merits Reports. It pointed out that the Commission failed to take into account that the investigation into the torture allegations was still active and that the alleged victims continued to pursue domestic remedies against the shortcomings in the investigation, even after the decision on the admissibility of the petition. 31 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Preliminary objections. Judgment of November 18, 1999, Series C No. 104, para. 53; Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013, Series C No. 275, para. 30, and Case of Members and Militants of the Patriotic Union v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 27, 2022. Series C No. 455, para. 119. The representatives specifically referred to an argument on the political context and the misuse of power (infra para. 45). 32 33 In the case of Tzompaxtle Tecpíle et al. v. Mexico, the State raised a similar objection in which it also alluded to the WGAD recommendations. However, in the processing of the case it withdrew this preliminary objection. Cf. Tzompaxtle Tecpíle et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 7, 2022. Series C No. 470, para. 30. -9-