48. Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention provides that the petition must be lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the petitioners were notified of the final judgment that exhausted domestic remedies. In the instant petition, the Commission has determined that the petitioners exhausted domestic remedies. 49. The petitioners argued that the denial of justice was consummated with the decisions of the Board of Directors of the Central Bank, which confirmed the decisions of the Special Commission to reject the vast majority of the petitions (supra para. 37). According to information provided by the State in its Note Nº 141/06 of September 15, 2006, the Board of Directors functioned from December 30, 2003 to December 28, 2005, and the petitioners lodged their complaint with the Commission on October 17, 2003. The Commission concludes that the petition was presented within the time limit set in Article 46(1) (b) of the Convention. 3. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata at the international level 50. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the subject matter of the petition is pending in another international proceeding for settlement, or is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international body. The Commission, therefore, concludes that the requirements established in Article 46(1) (c) are met. 4. Characterization of the alleged facts 51. The Commission finds that the petition describes acts, which, if proven, could constitute violations of the rights protected by Articles 8, 21, 24 and 25 of the American Convention in connection with the obligations contained in Articles 1(1) and 2, for which reason the requirements of Article 47(b) have been met. The alleged violations would give rise to the responsibility of the State owing to its failure to provide the guarantee of equality before the law in the procedure employed in the State’s remedy specifically designed to deal with the petitioners’ complaints. With respect to Article 4, the Commission considers that the petitioners did not demonstrate prima facie a possible violation of that right. It has not been sufficiently proven that the deaths of the persons in the group of petitioners were directly caused by the loss of their savings. For the purposes of admissibility, the Commission concludes that there is sufficient evidence that the allegations tend to establish violations of human rights and that the petition is not manifestly groundless or obviously out of order. V. CONCLUSION 52. The Commission has determined in the instant report that it is competent to take up the complaint lodged by the petitioners alleging violation of the rights to property and equality before the law (Articles 21 and 24) and the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection (Articles 8 and 25), in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention, in accordance with the requirements set forth in Article 46 of that treaty. 53. Based on the factual and legal arguments given above and without prejudging the merits of the case, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS DECIDES: 1. To declare the instant petition admissible in relation to Articles 1(1), 2, 8, 21, 24 and 25 of the American Convention. 2. To notify the parties of this decision. 13