35. In this regard, the Commission observes that the petitioners state that the victim was imprisoned in June 27, 2004 and that the petition was lodged only on April 20, 2005. In light of the particular circumstances of this petition, the IACHR considers that it was presented within a reasonable time frame. E. Duplication of procedures and res judicata 36. The Commission understands that the subject matter of the instant petition is not pending settlement before any other international organization nor does it reproduce a petition already examined by this other international organization. Accordingly, the requirements established in Article 46(1)(c) and 47(d) are satisfied. F. Characterization of the facts alleged 37. Article 47(b) and (c) of the Convention, as well as Article 34(a) and (b) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure consider a petition inadmissible if it does not state facts that tend to establish violations of the rights guaranteed by the Convention or other applicable instruments, or if the petitioners’ or state’s arguments indicate that the petition is manifestly groundless or out of order. 38. The petitioners allege that the State is responsible for violations of Mr. Neptune’s rights under Articles 5, 7 and 8 of the American Convention as summarized in part III above. The State did not present observations or information on the violations alleged by the petitioners. 39. Based on the information submitted by the petitioners and without prejudice to the merits, the Commission concludes that the petition contains allegations that tend to establish violations of the rights protected by Article 5, 7 and 8 of the Convention, while, in keeping with the principle of iura curia novit, the Commission tends to find a violation of Article 25 and 1(1). In addition, the IACHR considers that based on the information submitted, the petitioners’ allegations are not manifestly groundless or out of order. Accordingly, the IACHR concludes that the petition should not be considered inadmissible under Article 47(b) and (c) of the Convention, or Article (a) and (b) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. V. CONCLUSIONS 40. Having examined the present petition, the Commission concludes that it is competent to consider it. It finds that the petition is admissible with respect to petitioners’ allegations of violations of Articles 5, 7, 8 and 25(1) of the Convention. The Commission concludes likewise to advise the parties of this decision, and to proceed with its publication and inclusion in the Annual Report it will submit to the General Assembly of the OAS. 41. Based on the foregoing arguments of fact and of law set forth above, and without prejudging the merits of the matter THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, DECIDES: 1. To declare the present case admissible in respect to Articles 5, 7, 8 and 25.1 of the American Convention. 2. To notify the petitioners and the State of the present decision 3. To proceed with the examination of the merits of the case 4. To publish this decision and include it in the Annual Report to be submitted to the General Assembly of the OAS 5