97. On July 5, 2012, Federal Oral Court No. 6 of the Capital convicted Jorge Rafael Videla, de facto President of Argentina between 1976 and 1981, to 50 years of prison in the case known as the “Systematic Plan for the Abduction of Children,” as the mastermind behind the crime of abducting, detaining, and concealing the 10year old minors, Anatole and Victoria, among other children abducted during the dictatorship.101 V. ANALYSIS OF LAW A. Preliminary considerations 98. Before engaging in the analysis of law, the Commission deems it is relevant to clarify two preliminary aspects: i) ascertainment of the facts that are the subject of the instant case; and ii) the state’s allegation about the delay in forwarding the petition. 99. Regarding the first item, because there is a dispute between the parties about the scope of the subject of the instant case, it pertains to the Commission to clarify this aspect. As indicated in the section above relative to the processing of the case, on October 27, 1997, the petitioner withdrew the petition he had submitted to the IACHR on behalf of the Larrabeiti Yáñez siblings relative to the failure to respond to requests for information aimed at learning about the grounds for the fourth whereas clause of Decree No. 1025/96. On November 11, 2005, the petitioner submitted a new petition regarding the failure to provide reparations for the damage caused by the fourth whereas clause of Decree 1025/96. Afterwards, while said petition was in the initial review stage, on April 30, 2008, the petitioner submitted a petition that he described as “new and different,” relative to the failure to provide reparations for the grave human rights violations committed against the Larrabeiti Yáñez siblings and their biological parents as a result of a military operation carried out on September 26, 1976. The Executive Secretariat determined that, because it dealt with incidents intrinsically linked to the petition submitted in 2005, it would make sense to examine it as a part of the latter. Because of this, when forwarding the petition to the state, it sent the original petition received in 2005 along with the information submitted during the initial review stage, including the one received on April 30, 2008. 100. The state points out that the allegations referring to the concerns that emerged from the fourth whereas clause of Decree No. 1025/96 are excluded from the present analysis, because the petition regarding this aspect was withdrawn by the petitioner. It understands that the facts that substantiate the instant case “are those that took place on September 26, 1976, in connection with the forced disappearance of the parents of the petitioners, the illegitimate deprivation of their liberty in a clandestine detention center when they were children, then their abduction, transfer to Uruguay, and subsequent abandonment in Chile.” In turn, the petitioner alleges that the harm caused by this decree is an integral part of the petition filed in 2005. 101. The Commission concludes that the incidents that are excluded from the subject of the instant case are those regarding the failure to respond to the requests for information that were filed in order to learn about the background to the fourth whereas clause of Decree No. 1025/96, which is the subject of the petition that was withdrawn on October 27, 1997. The allegations regarding the failure to provide reparations for the alleged harm caused by said whereas clause, as well as the alleged violations that took place in the framework of the civil lawsuit filed on August 26, 1998 (case file No. 24.518/98), are an integral part of the subject of the petition submitted in 2005. Therefore, these facts, as well as the military operation that took place on September 26, 1976 and what subsequently happened to the Julien-Grisonas family, are an integral part of the instant case. 102. Finally, in connection with the state’s allegation about the delay in forwarding the petition, the Commission has established that the application by analogy of Article 46.1 b) of the American Convention to initiating proceedings is not supported in said instrument, because this delay has no connection with the timelimits for processing said petitions by the Inter-American Commission. 102 The Inter-American Court has Judicial Branch of the Nation. Judgment of Federal Oral Court No. 6 of the Capital, July 5, 2012. Available at: https://www.cij.gov.ar/nota9856-Difundieron-los-fundamentos-de-la-condena-a-Jorge-Rafael-Videla-a-50-a-os-de-prisi-n-por-el-robo-de-beb-s.html 102 I/A Court H.R. Case of Mémoli v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 22, 2013. Series C No. 265, para. 24 101