has considered the inadmissibility of petitions which had been previously submitted to that Committee.8 64. In order to consider that a situation of duplication or international res judicata exists in a case, besides the identity of the subjects, the object, and the intent,9 it is required that the petition is being considered, or has been decided, by an international body with competence to adopt decisions concerning the specific facts contained in the petition, and measures for the effective resolution of the dispute involved.10 65. The Commission finds that there is no disagreement over the identity of the petition lodged before the Committee (subjects, object, intent) and that subsequently lodged before the Commission. However, in the case it hand it has verified that the procedure before the Committee was discontinued at the request of the petitioners in 200311 without any decision having been made on the admissibility and the merits of the cases that would give rise to a situation of international res judicata. This has been confirmed by the Committee itself in a letter dated September 20, 2004, which states that communication No.1081/2002 submitted on behalf of Mr. Luis Gonzalo Vélez Restrepo and his family was no longer being considered before that organ, pursuant to a decision by the Committee at its 78th session in July 2003.12 66. In view of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the requirements have not been met to determine the inadmissibility of the petition under Articles 46(1) (c) and 47 (d) of the Convention and 33 of the IACHR’s Rules of Procedure. 2. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 67. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention provides that for a complaint lodged before the Inter-American Commission in accordance with Article 44 to be admissible, the remedies under domestic law must have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that the national authorities have the opportunity to take up an alleged violation of a protected right and where appropriate, resolve it, before it is taken up by an international entity. 68. The prior exhaustion of domestic remedies requirement is applied when the national system, in effect, has remedies available that are adequate and effective to rectify the alleged violation. However, subparagraph (2) stipulates that this requirement is not applicable whenever: a) the domestic legislation of the State concerned does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right or rights that have allegedly been violated; b) the party alleging violation of his rights has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law or has been prevented from exhausting them; or c) there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. 8 See, for example, IACHR, Report on Inadmissibility 89/05 of October 24, 2005. Petition 12.103. Cecilia Rosana Nuñez Chipana. Venezuela IACHR, Report 22/05 (Admissibility), Case 12.270, Johan Alexis Ortiz v. Venezuela, Para. 49; Report 30/99, Colombia. Case 11.206, César Chaparro Nivia and Vladimir Hincapié Galeano. March 11, 1999, para. 25 and 26. 9 I/A Court H.R., Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Preliminary Exceptions. Judgment of November 18, 1999. Series C, Nº 61, Para. 53. The Inter-American Court has interpreted this article considering that the phrase “substantially the same” signifies that there should be identity between the cases. In order for this identity to exist, the presence of three elements is necessary, these include: that the parties are the same, that the object of the action is the same and that the legal grounds are identical. 10 See, for example, IACHR, Report on Inadmissibility 89/05 of October 24, 2005. Petition 12.103. Cecilia Rosana Nuñez Chipana. Venezuela; Resolution 33/88, case 9786 (Peru), in OEA/Ser.L/V/II.76, doc. 10, September 18, 1989, whereas clauses d – h. 11 According to a letter from Columbia University’s Human Rights Clinic on behalf of the petitioners, addressed to the United Nations Human Rights Committee, dated June 26, 2003. 12 According to the September 20, 2004 letter from the United Nations Human Rights Committee, indicating that during its 78th session held in July 2003, the communication presented on behalf of Mr. Vélez Restrepo and his family was no longer being considered before that body. 10