47. Finally, in light of the allegations by the petitioner, it must be noted that Article 29 of the Convention will be applied in its totality in this and all matters, as a model for interpretation of the contractual obligations of the State. V. CONCLUSIONS 48. The Commission concludes that the case is admissible and that it has jurisdiction to examine the complaint lodged by the petitioners on the presumed violation of judicial guarantees (Article 8); political rights (Article 23); and juridical protection (Article 25) in accordance with the general obligation set out in Article 1(1) and the duty envisaged in Article 2 of the Convention, subject to the requirements established in Articles 46 and 47 thereof. The Commission finds that the petition is inadmissible on the points relating to Article 24 of the American Convention. 49. Based on the arguments in fact and in law cited above, and without prejudice to the merits of the case, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, DECIDES: 1. To declare the petition under review admissible relative to Articles 8, 23(1)(c) and 25, in accordance with the general obligation stated in Article 1(1) and the duty envisaged in Article 2 of the American Convention. 2. To declare inadmissible the points relating to Article 24 of the American Convention. 3. To notify the State and the petitioners of this decision. 4. To initiate proceedings on the merits of the case. 5. To publish this decision and include it in the Annual Report to be submitted 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 25th day of the month of February, 2005. (Signed): Clare K. Roberts, President; Susana Villarán, First Vice-President; Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, Second Vice-President; Evelio Fernández Arévalos, Jose Zalaquett and Florentín Meléndez, Commissioners. 9