82. In light of the above considerations, and seeing that the State presented no contrary information regarding the dates of notification, the Commission determines that the deadline set in Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention has been met. 3. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 83. Article 46(1)(c) of the Convention establishes that in order to be admissible, the subject of the petition “must not be pending in another international proceeding for settlement,” and Article 47(d) stipulates that it must not be “substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization.” In the instant case, the parties do not allege, nor does it appear in the record, that either of these conditions of inadmissibility is present. 4. Characterization of the facts alleged 84. Article 47(b) of the American Convention requires that a petition be declared inadmissible if it does not state facts that tend to establish a violation of the rights guaranteed by the Convention. 85. At this stage of the proceedings it is not appropriate for the Commission to state whether or not the alleged violations of the American Convention actually occurred. The IACHR has conducted a prima facie evaluation and determined that the petition raises allegations which, if proven, may tend to characterize possible violations of the rights guaranteed by the Convention. In this case the petitioners expressly allege violations of Articles 5, 7, 8, and 19 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of same, with regard to the State’s obligation to respect the rights to humane treatment, personal liberty, a fair trial, and rights of the child. The State has provided no observations on the violations alleged by the petitioners. 86. As the Commission has established in paragraph 67 of this report, alleged violations of the rights of children will be interpreted in light of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. In this regard, the IACHR believes that the facts presented warrant a more precise and complete examination during the merits stage. 87. The Commission considers itself to have competence to analyze the situation reported in the complaint in light of Article 19 of the American Convention because César Alberto Mendoza, Claudio David Núñez, Lucas Matías Mendoza, Saúl Cristián Roldán Cajal, and Ricardo David Videla Fernández were younger than 18 years of age when they committed the crimes for which they were sentenced to life in prison. Therefore, they had the right to special protections established for children, in light of consideration of “the best interests of the child.”15 The Commission will also analyze the possible application of Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention regarding the obligation of the Argentine State to respect rights and to adopt measures within domestic law to give effect to those rights. 15 In this regard, in Advisory Opinion OC N° 17, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights stated that “the expression “the best interests of the child,” enshrined in Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, implies that the development of the child and full exercise of his or her rights should be considered to be guiding principles for the preparation of laws and their application in all areas regarding the life of the child.”