to determine in its admissibility reports which provision of the relevant inter-American instruments is applicable or could be established as having been violated, if the facts alleged are sufficiently proven. 128. The petitioners hold that the Supreme Court, upon examining applications for cassation filed by the parties in the context of the criminal investigation initiated for torture, forced disappearance, or extrajudicial execution of the alleged victims, on the understanding that they constitute crimes against humanity that occurred under the military dictatorship, applied the legal concept recognized in Article 103 of the Criminal Code that contemplates “partial lapse of the statutory time period” (media prescripción) or “partial statutory limitations” (prescripción gradual). In that regard, they say that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to act as a trial court, as occurred in these cases, and that by vacating the judgment sua sponte, the victims were prevented from freely presenting their positions to said tribunal, which deprived them of the possibility of a hearing and of appealing against the decision. They also argue that penalties imposed upon application of that rule did not meet the standards of proportionality and pertinence or fulfill the purpose of providing reparation in cases involving crimes against humanity. Finally, they say that in Chile crimes against humanity are investigated, prosecuted and punished under the law governing ordinary crimes and that the Court does not provide reasons for its decision to grant the benefits of a mitigating factor such as partial statutory limitations to those responsible for crimes that are not covered by a statute of limitations. 129. The State, for its part, says that it has no objections in terms of the petitioners’ compliance with the formal requirements of admissibility. 130. The Commission finds that in the merits stage it must analyze the arguments regarding the legal nature and effects of the application of the legal concept of “partial lapse of the statutory time period” or “partial statutory limitations,” which the petitioners say was applied by the Chilean Supreme Court of Justice on its examination of applications for cassation in the cases presented in this petition relating to crimes against humanity committed during the dictatorship. 131. In that connection, the Commission concludes that the facts alleged in the petition could amount to violations of rights contained in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, given that the petition claims that the families did not have access to simple and effective recourse in the context of a proceeding that observes fair-trial guarantees and affords the possibility of an appropriate and proportional punishment for the perpetrators of the violations, as well as by virtue of the complained-of application of a legal concept that mitigates criminal responsibility based on the passage of time and its possible incompatibility with the prohibition against applying statutory limitations in cases of crimes against humanity; and Article 5 of the Convention, in relation to the suffering caused to the families of the alleged victims on account of what they claim to be a denial of justice. All of the above is taken in conjunction with Articles 1 (1) and 2 of the Convention. 132. Taking into account the factual and legal arguments presented by the parties, the nature of the matter before it, and the context that frames the complaints, the IACHR finds that, if proven, the petitioners’ submissions could characterize possible violations of rights protected in Articles 5, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, taking in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. VI. CONCLUSIONS 133. Based on the arguments of fact and law set forth above, the Commission concludes that the petition meets the admissibility requirements set forth in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention and, and without prejudging the merits of the matter, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS DECIDES: 1. To declare this petition admissible in relation to Articles 5, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, taken in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 of that instrument; 21