13 39. In this case, the Commission notes that after the final decisions were issued by the Chilean authorities there followed proceedings for settlement and that in some cases the alleged victims are said to have signed payment agreements that were not fulfilled. Therefore, the process of carrying out the sentences would appear to remain pending as of this writing. In that connection, bearing in mind that the object of the petition concerns alleged noncompliance with the aforementioned judgments, which constitutes a continuing situation, the Commission finds that the petition has been lodged within a reasonable time and that the admissibility requirement regarding the timeliness of the petition should be deemed met. 3. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 40. Article 46(1)(c) of the Convention provides that admission of a petition is subject to the requirement that the matter “is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement,” and Article 47(d) stipulates that the Commission shall not admit a petition which “is substantially the same as one previously studied by” it “or by another international organization.” 41. In this case, the State claims that the Chilean Teachers’ Association [Colegio de Profesores de Chile] presented the case to the International Labour Organization. In that regard, the petitioners point out that said international proceeding is not the same as those mentioned in Article 46(1)(c) and, furthermore, that complaint was presented by the Teachers’ Association, which is not a party in the petition analyzed in this report. The petitioners say that the complaint lodged with the Commission claims the international responsibility of the State for noncompliance with certain final and enforceable court judgments, while the complaint of the Chilean Teachers’ Association, an entity that represents all teachers in the country, seeks the revision of the education decentralization process because of its abridgment of the rights of the country’s teachers in the framework of Chile's labor obligations under international law. 42. For its part, the Commission has held that for duplication or res judicata to exist, a petition must be under consideration or have been ruled upon by an international organization with the competence to make decisions on the specific facts described in the petition and to impose measures capable of effectively resolving the dispute.6 43. In this regard, the Commission has concluded that recommendations issued by the ILO are not of the same nature as proceedings in the inter-American system for protection of human rights,7 given that such proceedings produce recommendations and not “an effective settlement of the claimed violation;” its decisions “do not have the effect of being legally binding, providing financial restitution, or indemnificatory in character."8 44. The Commission finds no circumstance to suggest inadmissibility in this regard. Therefore, the Commission finds that the requirements set forth in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention have been met in this case. 6 IACHR, Report No. 89/05 (Inadmissibility), Case 12.103, Cecilia Rosa Nuñez Chipana, (Venezuela), par. 37. 7 I/A Court H.R. Baena Ricardo et al. Case v. Panama. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of November 18, 1999. Series C No. 61, par. 57. 8 IACHR, Report No. 14/97, Case 11.381 (Nicaragua), March 12, 1997, par. 47; IACHR, Report No. 21/06, Petition 289302, Employees of Fertilizantes de Centroamérica (FERTICA) (Costa Rica), March 2, 2006, par. 40; IACHR, Report No. 23/06, Petition 71-03, Union of Ministry of Education Workers (ATRAMEC) (El Salvador), March 2, 2006, par. 27; IACHR, Report No. 140/09, Petition 1470-05, Members of the Union of State Workers of Antioquia (SINTRAOFAN) (Colombia), December 30, 2009, par. 75.