guarantees against self-incrimination is a question the Commission will examine during the merits phase of these proceedings. 57. The State maintains that because the petitioners were released from detention over ten years ago, their claims concerning the right to liberty no longer exist or subsist and should be dismissed. In this regard, the Commission reiterates that the fact that an individual is subsequently released or even convicted does not vitiate the possible transgression of the reasonable length of pre-trial detention required under the American Convention.8 58. The petitioners maintain that the prosecution of the alleged victims violated what they characterize as the right to the application of the more beneficial of two laws, as protected by Article 9 of the American Convention. They essentially argue that the judiciary chose between the statute of limitations in the Code of Criminal Procedure and that of the Code of Military Justice, and arbitrarily applied the former to ensure the continuation of the proceedings, when the latter would have been more beneficial. In this regard, the right set forth in Article 9 is to benefit from the imposition of a lesser penalty if one is enacted subsequent to the commission of the offense. Even assuming that what the petitioners allege is true, they have provided no basis to characterize a potential violation of Article 9, and their claims in this regard are consequently inadmissible. The Code of Military Justice they contend should have been applied was enacted prior to the commission of the offenses in question. To the extent any claims in this regard may relate to due process guarantees, they will be examined at the merits stage. 59. Finally, the Commission will examine the petitioners’ claims with respect to Article 10 of the American Convention concurrently with its review of the other claims on the merits. Article 10 recognizes the right to be compensated in the event of sentencing via a final judgment issued through judicial error. The determination as to whether there may have been such error–which in this instance is a question to be reviewed in the merits phase of the proceedings--is a precondition for the possible application of Article 10. 60. The Commission finds in the present case that the petitioners have stated claims concerning alleged violations of the right to liberty, personal integrity, equal protection, and judicial protection and guarantees, which, if consistent with other requirements and shown to be true, could tend to establish the violation of rights protected under Articles 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 24 and 25 of the American Convention. To the extent that it may be necessary, the Commission shall also review Articles XI, XV and XXVI of the American Declaration in its examination of the merits. V. CONCLUSIONS 61. The Commission concludes that it is competent to take cognizance of the instant case and that the petition is admissible, pursuant to Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. 62. Based on the factual and legal arguments set forth above, and without prejudging the merits of the case, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, DECIDES: 1. To declare the present case admissible with respect to the alleged violation of the rights recognized in Articles 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 24 and 25 of the American Convention, and to the extent relevant, Articles I, XXV and XXVI of the American Declaration. The claims concerning Article 9 of the American Convention are inadmissible. 2. To notify the parties of this decision. 3. To continue with the analysis of the merits of the case. 4. To make this report public, and publish it in its Annual Report to the General Assembly of the OAS. 8 IACHR, Report Nº 12/96, Giménez (Argentina), Case 11.245, March 1, 1996, para. 55 11