52. Ramón Mauricio García-Prieto was killed on 10 June 1994; the persecution and intimidation of his parents and wife and their lawyers are closely tied to that incident but have in any event continued up until the present. Moreover, irrespective of whether or not the allegation of an unwarranted delay could constitute a violation of the American Convention, the petition was submitted on 22 October 1996, a filing date which the Commission deems to be reasonable in light of the details of this case. 3. Duplication of Proceedings and Res Judicata 53. Article 46(1)(c) of the Convention states that one requirement for admissibility is "that the subject of the petition or communication is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement." 54. The Commission understands that the subject of this petition is not pending in any other international settlement proceeding, neither does it reproduce a petition already examined by it or by any other international body. It therefore concludes that the requirement set forth in Article 46(1)(c) has been met. 4. Nature of the Alleged Facts 55. Article 47(b) of the Convention states that the Commission shall declare inadmissible any petition or communication submitted under Articles 44 or 45 that "does not state facts that tend to establish a violation of the rights guaranteed by this Convention." 56. The facts of this case refer to the extrajudicial killing of Mr. Ramón Mauricio García-Prieto Giralt by three individuals who were wearing some items of military clothing and to the threats and harassment endured by his parents, his wife, and their lawyers. 57. With regard to these facts, the petitioners allege that one of Ramón Mauricio’s killers, Mr. Argueta Rivas--currently serving a 30-year prison term for carrying out the murder --served as an informer for the Salvadorian armed forces. The petitioners also claim Argueta Rivas named Sgt. Carlos Romero Alfaro (alias "Zaldaña") as having participated in the crime. This named individual, according to information that the State has at no time disputed, has not yet been indicted in the case. 58. The petitioners also allege that the Office of the Attorney for the Defense of Human Rights- an agency of the State attached to the Department of Public Prosecutions-- ruled, in a resolution dated 23 July 1996, that the right to personal security of Carmen Estrada (GarcíaPrieto’s widow), Gloria Giralt de García-Prieto, and Mauricio García-Prieto had been violated and that the police and judicial authorities had been negligent in conducting their investigations. 59. This resolution states that the constant surveillance and trailing suffered by the victim’s family could possibly have involved members of the National Civil Police. It also refers to the possible involvement of members of the armed forces, and it offers a summary of the unwarranted delays, irregularities, and procrastination in the judicial decisions handed down by the competent bodies. 60. The Commission believes that, in principle, the facts reported by the petitioners, if true, could constitute a violation of rights enshrined in the American Convention. It therefore holds that the admissibility requirement set forth in Article 47(b) of the Convention has been satisfied. VI. CONCLUSIONS 61. The Commission concludes that it is competent to hear the case at hand and that said case is admissible under the requirements set forth in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. 8