the Commission is pending with another international arrangement for settlement or has been decided by some other international organization. Nor is the petition substantially the same as one already studied by the Commission or another international organization. Hence, the Commission concludes that the petition satisfies those requirements. d. Characterization of the facts 43. Article 47(b) of the Convention provides that the Commission shall consider inadmissible any petition or communication that “does not state facts that tend to establish a violation of the rights guaranteed by this Convention.” In the instant case, the petitioner alleged that the following Convention provisions were violated: a) Article 5, by virtue of the fact that the petitioner was tortured; Article 7(1) and (2), by virtue of the fact that police authorities unlawfully deprived the petitioner of his liberty on November 18, 1991. The petitioner alleges that his arrest was arbitrary, as it was recorded as having occurred the following day, November 19, 1991; b) Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention, because the cases for his unlawful treatment and unlawful deprivation of his liberty and the case in which he is charged with several crimes began between November and December 1991 and approximately nine years have passed with no definitive judgment being rendered in any of the three; c) Article 7(5) because he has been subjected to protracted and unreasonable preventive detention pending trial in the case against him; d) Article 8(3) because the statement he made to police under torture has been taken into consideration in the proceedings wherein his responsibility for various crimes is being investigated. After examining the parties’ positions, the IACHR considers that the facts alleged could constitute violations of the Convention. Consequently, the Commission concludes that the petition satisfies the requirement set forth in Article 47(b) of the Convention. V CONCLUSIONS 44. The Commission concludes that it is competent to consider this case and that, based on the preceding analysis, the petitioner’s allegations relative to Articles 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the Convention are admissible under Articles 46 and 47 of the Convention. 45. Based on the foregoing arguments of fact and of law, and without prejudging the merits of the case, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, DECIDES: 1. To declare the present case admissible, with regard to the petitioner’s allegations of violations of Articles 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention. 2. To notify the parties of this decision. 3. To continue with the analysis of the merits of the case. 4. To publish this decision and include it in its Annual Report to the OAS General Assembly. Done and signed at the headquarters of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in the city of Washington, D.C., on the 19 th day of January in the year 2001. (Signed): Hélio Bicudo, Chairman; Claudio Grossman, First Vice-Chairman; Juan Méndez, Second ViceChairman; and Commission members Marta Altolaguirre, Robert K. Goldman, Peter Laurie and Julio Prado Vallejo. * The second Vice Chairman, Juan E. Méndez, an Argentine national, did not participate in the discussion and decision on this report, in keeping with Article 19(2)(a) of the Commission’s Regulations 14