fundamental rights and guarantees of due process, in order to assure the principle of legal certainty. It also presents specific allegations concerning each of the petitions. 4. Without prejudging the merits of the complaints, having examined the positions of the parties, and in conformity with the requirements set forth in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, the Commission decides to declare the case admissible for the purpose of examining the alleged violation of Article 8 (2) (h) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof. By virtue of the allegations made by some of the petitioners, it further decides that when it examines the merits, it will examine the alleged violation of Articles 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the Convention, also in conjunction with Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof. The Commission decides to declare the other articles invoked by the petitioners to be inadmissible. The Commission further decides to notify the Parties of this decision, to publish it, and to include it in its Annual Report to the OAS General Assembly. II. PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION Petition 233-04: Manfred Amrhein Pinto, Ronald Fernández Pinto, Carlos Osborne Escalante, Carlos Manuel González Lizano and Arturo Fallas Zúñiga 5. The petition was received on March 24, 2004.On September 17, 2004, it was forwarded to the State, along with a deadline of two months in which to submit its observations.The response was received on February 8, 2005.Information was also received from the petitioners on April 22 and August 4, 2005; September 13, 2006; January 16, 2007; and June 20, 2010. These notes were transmitted to the State. Costa Rica forwarded information on June 20 and September 22, 2005; February 5 and May 4, 2007; and May 21 and August 5, 2010. These notes were transmitted to the petitioners. Petition P-669-04: Rafael Antonio Rojas Madrigal 6. The petition was received on July 29, 20049, and was forwarded to the State on November 17, 2008, along with a deadline of two months in which to submit its observations. An extension having been granted, the response was received on March 9, 2009.The petitioner also forwarded information to the Commission on January 5, February 6, May 19, July 23 and 30, August 31,September 4, and October 7, 2009; and February 28, June 10, July 20 and October 28, 2010; January 11, 2011 and April 7, 2011.The notes were transmitted to the State. Costa Rica forwarded information on August 6 and September 24, 2009; April 29 and September 15, 2010; January 17, 2011, and June 14, 2011. The notes were transmitted to the petitioner. Petition P-1174-04: Damas Vega Atencio 7. The petition was received on November 3, 2004 and was transmitted to the State on August 4, 201010, along with a deadline of two months in which to submit its observations. The response was received on October 30, 2010. The Commission also received information from the petitioner on March 16, 2011; that information was transmitted to the State. Costa Rica forwarded information on June 14, 2011. The note was transmitted to the petitioner. Petition P-221-05: Miguel Mora Calvo 8. The petition was received on March 3, 2005 and was transmitted to the State on October 8, 2008, along with a deadline of two months in which to present its observations. The response was received on December 8, 2008.The Commission also received information from the petitioner on March 3 and July 1, 2009; and on March 15, August 10, and November 29, 2010.The notes were transmitted to the State. Costa Rica forwarded information on April 22 and August 10, 2009; on September 15, 2010 and on January 25, 2011, which information was transmitted to the petitioners. 9 The petitioner forwarded additional information on 37 occasions. On May 25, 2006 the IACHR received a petition presented by Anabella Alfaro Flores and her children, and gave it case Nº. 514-06. On August 30, 2010, the IACHR informed the Parties that the petition had been joined with petition No. 1174-04. 10 2