not a shred of evidence linking the individual to the alleged crime. The Commission considers at this point in the proceedings that the detention of Mr. Chaparro, without a warrant, holding him incommunicado for a period of time longer than that permitted under law and without access to a lawyer may disclose a violation of Articles 5 and 7 of the Convention. The determination as to whether the State had reasonable grounds to link him to the alleged crime and whether the detention was arbitrary are issues pending a full briefing on the merits in this case. In addition, Mr. Chaparro alleges that he was financially ruined, given that the State seized control of his Factory shortly after he was detained. Mr. Chaparro alleges that the seizure of his factory occurred in violation of the Drug Law and of the American Convention, since the law provides that the goods utilized in the commission of the crime are to be seized. The factory was seized without there ever having been a judgment finding Mr. Chaparro guilty of any crime under the law, in contradiction of his right to a presumption of innocence in violation of Articles 8(2) and his right to property, set forth in Article 21 of the Convention. b. As regards the petition of Mr. Lapo, the second petitioner 46. The Commission finds that the allegations, if proven, could establish a violation of the rights recognized in Article 7 of the American Convention to the detriment of Mr. Lapo. The State’s response does not address the issues raised under Article 7, but limits itself to an allegation that Mr. Lapo was afforded access to all available remedies under domestic law and that the proceedings respected the guarantees of due process. The State argues Articles 8 and 25, which are not raised by Mr. Lapo. An alleged arbitrary detention that is not cured by available domestic remedies may implicate violations of Articles 8 and 25 as regards the failure to afford access to a simple and prompt remedy for the detention and the guarantees of due process. The Commission frames the issue presented in this case as the right of the State, under the American Convention, to hold an individual in detention for more than eighteen months, when, as Mr. Lapo maintains, there is not a shred of evidence linking the individual to the alleged crime. The Commission considers at this point in the proceedings that the detention of Mr. Lapo, without a warrant, holding him incommunicado for a period of time longer than that permitted under law and without access to a lawyer may disclose a violation of Article 7 of the Convention. The determination as to whether the State had reasonable grounds to link Mr. Lapo to the alleged crime and whether the detention was arbitrary are issues pending a full briefing on the merits in this case. VI. CONCLUSION 47. Based on the factual and legal arguments given above and without prejudging the merits of the matter, the Commission concludes that this case meets the admissibility requirements set forth in Article 46 of the American Convention. THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, DECIDES: 1. To declare this case admissible as regards Article 5, 7, 8, 21 and 25 of the American Convention read in conjunction with Article 1(1) as regards Mr. Chaparro, the first petitioner. 2. To declare this case admissible as regards Article 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention read in conjunction with Article 1(1) as regards Mr. Lapo, the second petitioner. 3. To transmit this report to the two petitioners and to the State. 4. To continue with the analysis of merits in this case. 5. To publish this report and to include it in it’s Annual Report to the OAS General Assembly.