accusations regarding disappearances.” 16 In addition, following the change of government in December 2000, they lodged a fresh claim. 25. The Inter-American Commission notes that more than 31 years have passed since Rosendo Radilla Pacheco’s alleged disappearance, 13 years since the filing of the first complaint, and more than three years since the appointment of the FEMOSSP, and yet no specific progress has been made in locating the alleged disappearance victim or in investigating or punishing the guilty. As of the date of this report’s adoption, the investigation of the case in Mexico is still a pending matter. 26. In the IACHR’s view, based on the above information, the petition was lodged within a reasonable time per the terms of Article 32(2) of its Rules of Procedure. 3. Duplication of proceedings 27. The Commission has received no information from either the parties or other sources to indicate that the substance of the instant petition is pending in any other international settlement proceeding. 4. Characterization of the alleged facts 28. Article 47 paragraphs (b) and (c) of the American Convention states that the Commission shall consider inadmissible any petition or communication that “does not state facts that tend to establish a violation of the rights guaranteed by this Convention” or where “the statements of the petitioner or of the state indicate that the petition or communication is manifestly groundless or obviously out of order”. 29. The Inter-American Commission takes into account the context within which the alleged incidents took place and it believes the petitioners’ representations describe events that, if proven true, could tend to establish violations of the right to life, to humane treatment, to personal liberty, to a fair trial, and to judicial protection as set forth, respectively, in Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, all in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof. Accordingly, the Commission considers that Articles II, IX, XI and XIX of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons could apply. The IACHR therefore holds that the requirement set in Article 47(b) of the American Convention has been met and decides that the incident warrants a closer and more complete study during the merits phase. V. CONCLUSIONS 30. The IACHR concludes that it is competent to hear this petition and that it is in compliance with the admissibility requirements set out in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention and the corresponding articles of its Rules of Procedure. Based on the legal and factual considerations contained in this report, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS DECIDES: 1. To declare, without prejudging the merits of the case, that the petition is admissible as regards the alleged facts and with respect to Articles 4 (right to life), 5 (right to humane treatment), 7 (right to personal liberty), 8 (right to a fair trial), and 25 (right to judicial protection) of the American Convention; the obligation to respect those rights described in Article 1(1) thereof; and 16 Petitioners’ submission, October 21, 2004, paragraph 13, p. 3. 6