15 2. that the existence of this duplication affects the admissibility of case 11,325, as Articles 46.1.c, 47.d and 62.3 of the Convention have been violated; 3. that, according to the articles mentioned above and Article 39.1.a and 39.1.b of the Commission’s Regulations, there may not be a duplication of procedures for international settlement, related either to the matter or to the subjects of the complaint; 4. that the European Commission on Human Rights, when examining cases presented under Article 27.1.b of the European Convention on Human Rights, which in substance and in drafting is similar to Article 46.1 of the American Convention, has been constant in refusing to accept a case that has previously been submitted to the ILO; and 5. that the Commission acted outside the framework of the interAmerican norms and procedures mentioned above from the moment it knew that the same petition had been presented to the ILO. 49. Lastly, the State requested the Court to consider, revise and re-evaluate all the facts involved in this case, in particular those referring to the duplication of procedures that occurred from the moment that the case was referred to the ILO and to the Commission; to admit and declare with merit the preliminary objection filed; to reject the application and to close the case. 50. The Commission argued: a) that, when referring to the issue of lis pendens, Articles 47.d of the Convention and 39.1.b of the Commission’s Regulations use the expression “substantially the same” or “essentially duplicates”, respectively; b) that international jurisprudence has established that three elements determine if a petition is substantially the same as another that has previously been resolved, these are: the victim must be the same, the petition must be based on the same facts, and the legal grounds must be the same; c) that none of these three elements is present in the case referred to the Court, since there are the following differences between the two proceedings: 1. the subject of the application before the Court refers to 270 specific victims, while the procedure before the Freedom of Association Committee does not mention the names of any of the victims who are the subject of the current application; therefore, none of them has obtained an individualized response from the Freedom of Association Committee that would provide personal satisfaction. 2. the case before the Court also refers to due process, which the Freedom of Association Committee has not examined or pronounced on, as many of the decisions questioned were issued after the ILO pronouncement. The claims before the Committee referred to violations of freedom of association, and before the Court, the application refers to violations of the Convention; and