50. The Commission concludes that this petition is admissible, and therefore it is competent to consider the complaint presented by the petitioners as regards the alleged violation of Articles 5, 7, 8, 17, 19, and 25, in connection with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention; and, by virtue of the iura novit curia principle, as regards the alleged violation of Articles 3 and 4 in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2, as provided in Articles 46(1)(c) and d), and 46(2)(b) and c of the same treaty, and consistent with Articles 28 to 37 and 39 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. However, the petition is inadmissible as regards the alleged violation of Article 18 of the Convention. 51. By virtue of the foregoing arguments of fact and law, and without prejudging the merits of the matter, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS DECIDES: 1. To declare the present petition admissible as regards Articles 5, 7, 8, 17, 19, and 25 in connection with Article 1(1) of the American Convention. 2. To declare the petition admissible, in application of the iura novit curiaprinciple, as regards Articles 3 and 4 of the American Convention in connection with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same treaty. 3. To declare the present petition inadmissible as regards Article 18 of the American Convention. 4. To transmit this report to the State and the petitioners. 5. To begin its analysis of the merits of the case. 6. To publish this decision and include it in the Commission’s Annual Report to the OAS General Assembly. Done and signed in the city of Washington, D.C., on the 5th day of the month of March, 2008. (Signed): Paolo G. Carozza, Chairman; Luz Patricia Mejía Guerrero, First Vice-Chairwoman; Felipe González, Second Vice-Chairman; Sir Clare K. Roberts, Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, and Víctor E. Abramovich, Commissioners. 10