the Convention requiring the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies and the submission of petitions within a period of six months following the date of the final judgment issued under domestic jurisdiction are independent. The Inter-American Commission must therefore determine whether or not the petition was lodged within a reasonable period. Thus, the IACHR notes that the original petition was received on March 15, 2004. The incidents described in the complaint began in December 2003. The IACHR consequently holds that the petition was submitted within a reasonable period of time. E. Duplication of international proceedings and res judicata 40. The petitioner’s claims do not indicate that this petition is pending in any other international proceeding or venue or that it is substantially the same as any earlier petition previously examined by the Commission or any other international body. The Commission therefore believes that in case at hand, the admissibility requirements set in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention have been met. F. Characterization of the alleged facts 41. In ruling on admissibility, the IACHR must determine whether the incidents described in the petition tend to establish a violation of rights enshrined in the American Convention, as required by Article 47(b), or whether the petition, in compliance with Article 47(c), is to be dismissed as “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order.” 42. The petitioner has made claims that, if proven true, could constitute violations of the right to life (Article 4), to humane treatment (Article 5), to a fair trial (Article 8), and to judicial protection (Article 25), in conjunction with the general obligation set forth in Article 1(1) of the Convention, and that are not “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order.” Additionally, in accordance with the general principle in international law of iura novit curia, international agencies have the power–indeed, the duty–to enforce all applicable legal provisions, even those not invoked by the parties.18 In application of this principle, the IACHR believes that the facts alleged by the petitioner could entail violations to Article 21 (right to property) of the American Convention. Consequently, and without prejudging the merits of the case, the Commission believes that the requirements set by Articles 47(b) and (c) of the American Convention have been met. V. CONCLUSIONS 43. The Commission believes that it is competent to hear the instant petition and that the petition is admissible under the admissibility requirements set forth in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention on Human Rights as regards the alleged violations of Articles 1, 4, 5, 8, 21, and 25 of the American Convention with respect to Narciso Barrios, Eloisa Barrios, Elvira Barrios, Justina Barrios, Luis Barrios, and Oneida Barrios. 44. In light of the foregoing arguments of fact and law, and without prejudging the merits of the case, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS DECIDES: 1. To declare this petition admissible as regards the alleged violations of the rights protected by Articles 1, 4, 5, 8, 21, and 25 of the American Convention. 2. To notify the parties of this decision. 18 IACHR, Report Nº 38/96, Case 10.506, Argentina, October 15, 1996. 8