these circumstances. Consequently, the Commission holds that these requirements have been met. d. Nature of the allegations 40. Regarding the requirements of substance for a petition to be declared admissible, Article 47(b) states that inadmissibility will be declared when the allegations do not constitute a violation of rights guaranteed by the Convention. The Commission holds that if they are true, the petitioner’s allegations do tend to establish violations of the human rights protected by Articles 3, 8, 21, 24, and 25 of the American Convention, together with the right of work and fair remuneration (Article XIV) enshrined in the American Declaration. V. CONCLUSIONS 41. The Commission concludes that it is competent to hear this case and that the petition is admissible pursuant to Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. 42. Based on the factual and legal considerations outlined above, and without prejudice to the merits of the case, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, DECIDES: 1. 2. 3. To declare this case admissible. To notify the parties of this decision. To proceed with the analysis of the merits of the case. 4. To make itself available to the parties in order to reach a friendly settlement based on respect for the rights enshrined in the American Convention, and to invite the parties to make a statement regarding said possibility. 5. To publish this decision and to include it in its Annual Report to the OAS General Assembly. Done and signed at the headquarters of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in the city of Washington, D.C., on the Fourth day of May, 1999. (Signed): Robert K. Goldman, Chairman; Hélio Bicudo, First Vice Chairman; Claudio Grossman, Second Vice Chairman; and 13