16 3. the rights invoked before the Committee (related to freedom of association, particularly through violation of ILO Conventions 87 and 98) do not coincide with those that are invoked before the Court (related to judicial guarantees, due process, presumption of innocence, freedom from ex post facto laws, right to compensation, right of assembly, freedom of association, right to judicial protection, the obligation to comply with the recommendations of the Commission in good faith, and the general provisions of Articles 1.1 and 2 of the Convention), and were not the subject of the petition before the Commission or the application before the Court. d) that the United Nations Human Rights Committee has indicated that, if a victim is not individualized, particularly in the original petition, it should not be considered that there is duplication if his or her name appears directly and specifically in a second petition; e) that the State tacitly renounced filing the objection of duplication because it did not allege it before the Commission and, thus, precluded its right. According to the Commission, the State’s position that the Commission should have rejected the petition as it allegedly knew that grounds for duplication existed, although Panama did not raise an objection before the Commission, is totally unacceptable, because it is contrary to the procedural principles emanating from the Convention and the jurisprudence of the Court; f) that the inadmissibility of the case was neither manifest nor evident and that the State had both the right and the procedural responsibility to file the objection of duplication of proceedings and prove its merits; g) that Panama’s failure to make this allegation promptly, prevented the Commission and the victims from exercising their right to defend themselves from it; h) that, in view of the principles of good faith and procedural equality, the State may not introduce a question of admissibility that was not alleged before the Commission belatedly and after the statutory time limit has passed; and i) that the State had ample opportunity to respond and file the objection of duplication, but did not invoke it in any of its appearances, so that, in view of the principles of good faith and procedural equality, its tacit waiver is presumed and filing the objection before the Court at this stage of the proceedings is time-barred. *** 51. The Court proceeds to consider the second preliminary objection. 52. Article 47 of the American Convention states that: The Commission shall consider inadmissible any petition or communication submitted under Articles 44 or 45 if: …