due process and analyzes the political events that affected that guarantee. The file before the Commission includes a copy of the criminal accusation filed by Martha Flórez Gutiérrez, Huilca's widow, with the Office of the Attorney General against the members of the Colina Paramilitary Group, as well as a request for proof to clarify the events. Nonetheless, in the responses to the observations dated October 24, 1997 and April 23, 1998, the Peruvian State did not present any information contradicting the existence of and proceedings for this criminal accusation and, on the contrary, in the first observation, accurately affirms that the petitioner did not file a motion to reopen the case or turn to the Public Ministry, in order to conclude that the petitioner did not exhaust judicial recourse. B. Concurrency of legal actions 13. The petition includes the informational requirements set forth in article 32 of the Regulations of the Commission and meets the conditions stipulated in article 46(1)(c) of the American Convention and article 39 of the Regulations, since it is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement and is not substantially the same as one pending before or previously studied by the Commission. 14. The two parties agree that there were criminal proceedings for the murder of Pedro Huilca that led to the apprehension and final conviction of members of the Shining Path and that a motion to reopen the case cannot be filed by the plaintiff. This means that the judicial remedies authorized under the legal system for relatives of the victim, correctly designated by the Peruvian State as the "plaintiff" (parte civil), were exhausted. Furthermore, in the various responses to observations, the State omits all information on actions or steps taken as a result of journalistic publications questioning the presumption of credibility underlying the res judicatanature of the guilty verdict handed down or with regard to the accusation filed by the victim's wife with the Office of the Attorney General. The Commission therefore concludes that Peruvian officials have not reacted as stipulated under domestic law and should take action to investigate the new facts. VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15. The Commission concluded that it is competent to hear this case and that the case is admissible, in keeping with the requirements established in articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. 16. Based on these arguments of fact and of law, and without prejudging the substance of the matter, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, DECIDES: 1. To declare this case admissible. 2. To notify the parties involved of that decision. 3. To continue to examine the merits of the case. 4. To make itself available to the parties to reach a friendly settlement based on the observance of the rights enshrined in the Convention and to invite the parties to present their opinions on that possibility within two months. 5. To publish this report and include it in the annual report of the Commission to the General Assembly of the OAS. Done and signed at the headquarters of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, in Washington, D.C. on September 25, 1998. (Signed): Carlos Ayala Corao, Chair; Robert K. Goldman, First Vice Chair; Jean Joseph Exumé, Second Vice Chair; Alvaro Tirado Mejía, Claudio Grossman, Hélio Bicudo, and Henry Forde. 4