of Chile on July 20, 1995, exhausted remedies in the Chilean domestic jurisdiction in the case of Humberto Palamara Iribarne. 37. In addition, both parties agreed that domestic remedies had not been exhausted with respect to the facts alleged in case No. 464 when the processing of this matter began before the IACHR. In its supplemental filing submitted March 18, 1998, the petitioners argue that the judgment of the Supreme Court denying the motion of cassation on the merits, handed down August 5, 1997, exhausted domestic remedies with respect to those facts. After said supplemental filing, the State did not raise any objection with respect to the requirement set forth in Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention. Accordingly, the IACHR declares that domestic remedies were also exhausted with respect to the arguments on the facts that gave rise to case No. 464 against Mr. Palamara Iribarne for disobedience of military duties. 38. The Inter-American Commission concludes that it has been fully shown that the requirement provided for at Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention has been met with respect to all the facts alleged in this matter. b. Time period for submission 39. The petition was received January 16, 1996, within six months counted from notification of the judgment of July 20, 1995, which exhausted domestic remedies in Chile. Therefore, the requirement set forth at Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention has been met. c. Duplication of procedures and res judicata 40. The record in this case contains no information whatsoever that might lead to a determination that this matter is pending before another international organization or that it has been previously decided by the Inter-American Commission. In view of the foregoing, it is concluded that the exceptions provided for at Article 46(1)(d) and Article 47(d) of the American Convention do not apply. d. Characterization of the facts alleged 41. The complaint sets forth facts that the petitioners consider violate Articles 8, 13, and 21 of the American Convention, and that have not been controverted by the State. The InterAmerican Commission considers that the arguments on the facts must be examined in the merits phase, to determine whether they constitute violations of the American Convention. Accordingly, the IACHR concludes that the requirements of Article 47(b) and (c) of the American Convention have been met. V. CONCLUSIONS 42. In keeping with Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, the Inter-American Commission concludes that it is competent to declare this case admissible and to examine the merits. This conclusion is based on the arguments of fact and law set forth above, and is reached without prejudging the merits. THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, DECIDES: 1. To declare this case admissible as regards the alleged violations of the rights protected at Articles 8, 13, and 21 of the American Convention. 2. To notify the parties of this decision. 3. To continue to analyze the merits issues. 8