68. Based on elements of fact and law presented by the parties and the nature of the matter submitted to it, the Commission considers that the petitioners’ allegations of violations of the rights to life, humane treatment, personal liberty, a fair trial, and judicial protection tend to establish a violation of the rights protected in Articles 4.1, 5.1, 5.2, and 7.1-7.5, in connection with Article 1.1 of the American Convention to the detriment of Benito Antonio Barrios and Rigoberto Barrios; and of the rights to mental and moral integrity, due process, and judicial protection set forth in Articles 5.1, 8.1, and 25 of the American Convention respectively, in connection with Article 1.1 of the same treaty, to the detriment of their family members. 69. The Commission considers that the petitioners’ allegations of violation of the right to personal liberty tend to establish violations of the rights protected in Article 7.1-7.5 of the American Convention to the detriment of Jorge Antonio, Néstor Caudi, Luisa del Carmen, and Oscar Barrios, and Jesús and Gustavo Ravelo. Furthermore, the allegations concerning alleged violation of the right to humane treatment tend to establish violations of the rights protected in Article 5.1 and 5.2 of the American Convention to the detriment of Jorge Antonio Barrios and Jesús and Gustavo Ravelo, and in Article 5.1 of the American Convention to the detriment of Luisa del Carmen and Oscar Barrios, all in connection with Article 1.1 of the same instrument. 70. The Commission considers that the petitioners’ allegations of violation of the right to freedom of movement and residence tend to establish violations of the right protected in Article 22.1 of the American Convention in connection with its Article 1.1, to the detriment of several members of the Barrios family. (See IV.A supra.) 71. Applying the iura novit curia principle, the Commission finds that the facts also tend to establish violations of Article 19 of the American Convention, to the detriment of the minors Rigoberto and Jorge Antonio Barrios and the other girls and boys in the Barrios family (see IV.A supra). Finally, based on the restrictions regarding interpretation specified in the American Convention on Human Rights55 and the criteria established by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights concerning the tendency to integrate the regional and universal systems for the protection of human rights56 and the concept of a corpus juris for the protection of the child,57 the Commission will interpret the scope and content of the rights that have allegedly been violated to the detriment of the boys and girls of the Barrios family in the light of the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.58 Since there is no evidence that the petition is manifestly groundless or obviously out of order, the Commission deems that the requirements set forth in Articles 47.b and c de of the American Convention have been satisfied. VI. CONCLUSIONS 72. By virtue of the foregoing arguments of fact and law, and without prejudging the merits of the matter, the Inter-American Commission concludes that the instant case is admissible in accordance with Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention and therefore, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS DECIDES: 55 American Convention, Article 29: Restrictions Regarding Interpretation. No provision of this Convention shall be interpreted as: …b. restricting the enjoyment or exercise of any right or freedom recognized by virtue of the laws of any State Party or by virtue of another convention to which one of the said states is a party;…. 56 I/A Court H.R., Advisory Opinion OC 1/82 of September 24, 1982 on “Other treaties” subject to the advisory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights), para. 41. 57 I/A Court H.R., The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Judgment of November 29, 1999, Series C N° 63, para. 194; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”. Judgment of September 2, 2004, para. 148;Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, Judgment of July 8, 2004, para. 166; I/A Court H.R., Juridical Condition and Human Righs of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002, Series A, No. 17, paras. 24, 37, 53. 58 This Convention was adopted on November 20, 1989, and entered into force on September 2, 1990. The State of Venezuela ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child on September 13, 1990. 13