45. The petitioners informed the Commission that they had laid a complaint before the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances of the United Nations Human Rights Commission. In the Commission's view, the fact that the petitioners have reported the facts of this complaint to the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances of the United Nations Human Rights Commission does not prevent the Commission from considering the case. The IACHR has previously noted that proceedings before that body are not susceptible of providing an international settlement, under the terms required in Article 46(1)(c) of the Convention, taken in concordance with Article 39(2)(b) of the Commission's rules of procedure.13 From the declarations of the petitioners, there is no evidence that this case is pending before any other international body or that it essentially duplicates a petition previously examined by the Commission or another international organization. The Commission therefore considers that the case meets the requirements of admissibility stipulated in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(1)(d) of the Convention. E. Characterization of the facts alleged 46. For purposes of admissibility, the IACHR must determine whether the facts set forth in the petition tend to establish violation of the rights guaranteed by the Convention, pursuant to Article 47(b), or whether the petition, pursuant to Article 47(c), should be rejected as "manifestly groundless or obviously out of order". 47. The petition in question refers to alleged acts of arbitrary detention, torture and forced disappearance committed by agents of the Bolivian State against Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas and José Luis Ibsen Peña. The Commission considers that the statement of the petitioners refers to facts that, if demonstrated, could characterize violations of the rights to liberty and to life, to protection from arbitrary arrest, and to due process, covered in Articles I, XXV and XXVI of the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, as well as with respect to the rights to juridical personality, personal liberty, humane treatment, life, freedom of expression, a fair trial, and judicial protection enshrined in Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 13 and 25 of the American Convention, and the obligation to respect those rights referred to in Article 1(1) of the treaty. These facts could also constitute violation of Articles I, III, IV and XI of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. Moreover, consistent with the general principle of international legislation, that of iura novit curia, international organizations have the power and the duty to apply all pertinent legal provisions, even if they have not been invoked by the parties.14 In light of this principle, the IACHR considers that the facts alleged by the petitioners could characterize violations of Article 5 of the American Convention with respect to the relatives of the presumed victims. V. CONCLUSIONS 48. The Commission considers that it is competent to hear the petition, and that the petition is admissible in light of the requirements of Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention on Human Rights and in light of the alleged violations committed against Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas and José Luis Ibsen Peña. 49. By virtue of the arguments of fact and of law set forth above, and without prejudging the merits of the case, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, DECIDES: 1. To declare, without prejudging the merits of the complaint, that the petition is admissible with respect to the facts alleged and with respect to Articles I (right to life, liberty and personal security), XXV (right of protection from arbitrary arrest), XXVI (right to due process of law) of the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, as well as with respect to Articles 3 (right to juridical personality), 4 (right to life), 5 (right to humane treatment), 7 (right to personal liberty), 8 (right to a fair trial), 25 (right to judicial protection), 13(1) (freedom of 13 14 See for example, IACHR Report 18/88 (Peru), Annual Report 1987-1988. IACHR, Report 38/96, Case 10.506, Argentina, 15 October 1996. 8