recognition of juridical personality and civil rights (Article XVII), to a fair trial (Article XVIII), and to property (Article XXIII) as set forth in the Declaration. In this regard, the Commission holds that after the Convention had come into force for the Argentine State, it–and not the Declaration–became the Commission’s primary source of applicable law,3 provided that petitions refer to alleged violations of rights that are substantially identical in both instruments4 and do not describe a situation of continuous violation.5 32. In the case at hand, although there is no situation of continuous violation, there is a similarity of substance between the provisions of the Declaration and those of the Convention invoked by the petitioner. Thus, the rights to a fair trial (Article XVIII), to property (Article XXIII), and to the recognition of juridical personality and civil rights (Article XVII) enshrined in the Declaration are subsumed by the provisions that establish the rights protected by Articles 8, 21, and 3 of the Convention. Hence, in connection with those violations of the Declaration, the Commission will refer solely to the provisions of the Convention. 33. However, the right to work and fair remuneration (Article XIV) enshrined in the Declaration is not protected by the Convention. The Commission believes that this situation does not preclude its ratione materiae competence since, under Article (29)(d) of the Convention, “no provision of this Convention shall be interpreted as [. . .] excluding or limiting the effect that the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and other international acts of the same nature may have.” Consequently, the Commission will examine this violation of the Declaration. B. Additional requirements for the admissibility of the petition a. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 34. The Commission repeats that the rule covering the filing and exhaustion of domestic remedies set forth in Article 46(1).a of the Convention requires that individuals who wish to lodge a complaint or 3 As the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has stated: “For the States Parties to the Convention, the specific source of their obligations with respect to the protection of human rights is, in principle, the Convention itself.” Advisory Opinion OC-10/89 (Interpretation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man Within the Framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights), July 14, 1989, paragraph 46. 4 As the Inter-American Court has stated: “These States cannot escape the obligations they have as members of the OAS under the Declaration, notwithstanding the fact that the Convention is the governing instrument for the States Parties thereto.” Advisory Opinion OC-10/89, July 14, 1989, paragraph 46. 5 The Commission has established that it is competent to examine violations of the Declaration and of the Convention provided that they involve a situation of continuous violation of the rights protected in those instruments; for example, a denial of justice beginning before the State in question ratified the Convention and persisting after said State has expressed its consent and the Treaty has come into force for it. See, for example, Res. 26/88, Case 10.109 Argentina, IACHR Annual Report 1987-1988. 10