Ecuadorian Red Cross,24 and their connection with the claim of the instant case, the Commission finds that it is competent to examine the possible responsibility of the State in the merits phase. 33. With regard to the claims of the petitioners, the Commission finds that the alleged facts could characterize possible violations of the right to life, protected in Article 4(1)25 in connection with Article 1(1) of the American Convention. In addition, the Commission, applying the principle of iura novit curia, finds that the allegations of fact submitted by the petitioners may constitute a violation of the duty of the State to protect personal integrity in accordance with Article 5(1) of the American Convention and its duty to ensure due protection of the courts in accordance with Articles 8(1) and 25(1) as they relate to Article 1(1) of the Convention. 34. In addition, the IACHR will consider the possible responsibility of the State in connection with the duty to protect the rights of the female child TGGL under Article 19 of the American Convention vis-a-vis Article 1(1) of the Convention and the restrictions regarding interpretation established in the American Convention,26 as well as the criteria established by the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights with respect to the tendency to integrate the regional and universal systems,27 and with respect to the notion of corpus juris in the area of children.28 35. In that the lack of foundation and inadmissibility of these aspects of the complaint are not evident, the Commission finds that the requirements established in Article 47(b) and (c) of the American Convention have been met. V. CONCLUSIONS 36. The Commission concludes that it is competent to examine the complaints submitted by the petitioner regarding the alleged violation of Articles 4(1), 5(1), 8(1), 19, and 25(1) consistent with Article 1(1) of the American Convention and that the complaints are admissible in accordance with the requirements established in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. 37. Based on the factual and legal arguments presented above and without thereby prejudging the merits of the case, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, DECIDES: 1. To declare the instant case admissible with respect to Articles 4(1), 5(1), 8(1), 19, and 25(1) of the American Convention as they relate to Article 1(1) thereof. 24 The Inter-American Court has stated that “when related to the essential jurisdiction of the supervision and regulations of rendering the services of public interest, such as health, by private or public entities, the state responsibility is generated by the omission of the duty to supervise the rendering of the public service to protect the mentioned right.” I/A Court H.R., Albán Cornejo et al. Case.Judgment of November 22, 2007. Series C, No. 171, para. 119. 25 See I/A Court H.R., Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community. Judgment of June 17, 2005, Series C, No. 125, para. 162 and I/A Court H.R., Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community. Judgment of March 29, 2006, Series C, No. 146, para. 153. 26 American Convention, Article 29 Restrictions Regarding Interpretation. No provision of this Convention shall be interpreted as: [] b) restricting the enjoyment or exercise of any right or freedom recognized by virtue of the laws of any State Party or by virtue of another convention to which one of the said States is a party; []. 27 I/A Court H.R., Advisory Opinion OC 1/82 of September 24, 1982 on “Other Treaties” Subject to the Consultative Jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights) para. 41. The Commission notes that the Ecuadorian State ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child on March 23, 1990. 28 I/A Court H.R., The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.) Judgment of November 19, 1999, Series C, No 63, para. 194. Juvenile Reeducation Institute Case. Judgment of September 2, 2004, para. 148, Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004, para. 166. I/A Court H.R., Juridical Status and Rights of the Child, Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002, Series A, No. 17, paras. 24, 37, 53. 8