General Tax Directorate--do not allow the object of the suit in question to be turned into a damages suit. 37. The Commission notes that the petitioner’s allegations essentially address the judicial authorities’ refusal to admit its claim based on the payment obligations incumbent on the General Tax Directorate as the employer. Contentious-administrative proceedings, as used by the alleged victims in their attempt to secure payment of their job earnings, differ from civil actions for damages. The petitioner stated in the case file that the issue is not the responsibility of the State through its illegal actions of arrest and torture, but rather that of the employer, an autonomous State agency that ordered them to be suspended from work and did not pay their wages during the period of their arrest Under these circumstances, the Commission believes that Ms. Perrone and Mr. Preckel have invoked and exhausted the appropriate remedies available in the Argentine legal system for resolving their situation. Consequently, the Commission holds that domestic remedies have been exhausted in accordance with Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention. b. Filing period 38. In this case, the ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice rejecting the appeal filed against the dismissal of the extraordinary remedy was handed down on June 11, 1996, in the proceedings dealing with Ms. Perrone and Mr. Preckel. The petitions were filed with the Commission on December 9, 1996, (Ms. Perrone) and December 13, 1996 (Mr. Preckel). The Commission holds that Ms. Perrone’s petition was submitted within the prescribed six-month period. Mr. Preckel’s petition, however, was one day late. The State made no claim regarding failure to comply with this requirement. Since the petitions were combined and since the State made no objection the Commission holds that the filing period requirement set forth in Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention has been met. c. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 39. Article 46(1)(c) stipulates that to be admissible, a petition must not cover a question pending in any other international proceeding (nonduplication) and Article 47(d) requires that the petition not be substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization (res judicata). In the case at hand, the parties have neither claimed nor proved the existence of either of 12