41. Nothing in the case file suggests that the subject of the petition is pending in another international proceeding for settlement or that it is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or another international body. Thus, the Commission considers that the requirements established in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention have been met . 4. Characterization of the facts alleged 42. The Commission considers that the petitioners’ allegations regarding violation of the right to life, the right to humane treatment, the right to personal liberty, the right to judicial guarantees, the right to have one’s honor respected and dignity recognized, freedom of association, the rights of the family, the right to freedom of movement and residence and the right to judicial protection, could tend to establish violations of the rights protected in articles 4, 5, 7(1), 7(3), 8(1), 11(2), 16, 17, 22(1) and 25 of the American Convention, all in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, i.e. the State’s duty to ensure, and the acts and omissions of its agents vis-à-vis the actions of third parties. The Commission does not find these claims to be either baseless or manifestly out of order, and therefore considers the requirements established in Articles 47(b) and (c) of the American Convention have been met. 43. As to the claims asserting an alleged violation of Article 27 of the American Convention, the petitioners point to the state of internal disturbance that the President of the Republic had decreed on the date the facts were said to have occurred. The petitioners are alleging violation of the Article 27 restriction against suspension of non-derogable rights. In the merits phase, the Commission will decide whether the State’s international obligations vis-à-vis this article need to be examined. V. CONCLUSIONS 44. The Commission concludes that it is competent to examine the claims made by the petitioners with regard to the alleged violation of articles 5(1), 7(1), 7(3), 8(1), 11(2), 16, 17(1), 22(1) and 25, all in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention and to the detriment of María del Socorro Mosquera Londoño, Mery del Socorro Naranjo Jiménez and Ana Teresa Yarce and their next of kin, Article 4 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof and to the detriment of Ana Teresa Yarce. It also finds that the petition is admissible under the rules set forth in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. 45. Based on the foregoing arguments of fact and of law, and without prejudging the merits of the case, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS DECIDES: 1. To declare the present petition admissible with regard to articles 4, 5(1), 7(1), 7(3), 8(1), 11(2), 16, 17(1), 22(1) and 25 of the American Convention, all in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. 2. To notify the Colombian State and the petitioners of this decision. 3. To proceed to the analysis of the merits of the petition. 4. To publish this decision and include it in its Annual Report to the OAS General Assembly. Done and signed in the city of Washington, D.C., on the 23 rd day of the month of July, 2007. (Signed): Florentín Meléndez, President; Paolo G. Carozza, First Vice-President; Víctor E. Abramovich, Second Vice-President; Evelio Fernández Arévalos, Sir Clare K. Roberts, and Freddy Gutiérrez, Commissioners. 8