36. The petition file contains no information that would lead to a determination that this matter is pending settlement in any other international proceeding or has previously been decided by the InterAmerican Commission. Therefore, the IACHR concludes that the exceptions established in Article 46.1.d) and Article 47.d) of the American Convention are not applicable. 4. Characterization of the alleged facts 37. In this petition, the State maintains that the death of the alleged victim occurred as the result of an armed confrontation and based on the facts proceedings were diligently conducted at the domestic level in the military criminal, administrative-contentious, and disciplinary jurisdiction and thus the Commission would be acting as a court of fourth instance. For their part, the petitioners maintain that the alleged victim was extrajudicially executed and that the investigation and prosecution of the facts were conducted in the military criminal jurisdiction, so that the perpetrators of the crimes have not been prosecuted and punished in the appropriate forum. 38. Thus, given the factual and legal arguments submitted by the parties and the nature of the matter presented for its review, the IACHR finds that in the instant case it is appropriate to establish that the allegations made by the petitioners regarding the alleged violation of the right to life and personal integrity to the detriment of Elio Gelves Carrillo could characterize violations of the rights protected in Articles 4 and 5 consistent with Article 1.1 of the American Convention. In addition, it is appropriate to establish that the allegations of the petitioners regarding the alleged violation of the right to judicial guarantees and judicial protection to the detriment of the relatives of the alleged victim could characterize violations of the rights protected in Articles 8 and 25 consistent with Article 1.1 of the American Convention. 39. The Commission, applying the principle of iura novit curia, considers that the facts covered in this petition could also characterize possible violations of Article 19 of the American Convention, to the detriment of Elio Gelves Carrillo. In accordance with the rules of interpretation regarding human rights 10 established in the American Convention and the criteria established by the Inter-American Court of 11 Human Rights regarding the tendency to integrate the regional system and the universal system as well 12 as with respect to the idea of corpus juris in the area of children and adolescents, the Commission will interpret the scope and content of the rights alleged to have been violated to the detriment of Elio Gelves 13 Carrillo in the light of the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. 40. The IACHR, applying the principle of iura novit curia, considers that the alleged facts could characterize a violation of Article 5 of the American Convention to the detriment of the relatives of the 14 alleged victims. In that the lack of grounds or inadmissibility of these aspects of the complaint are not evident, the Commission deems the requirements established in Articles 47(b) and (c) of the American Convention to have been met. V. CONCLUSIONS 10 American Convention, Article 29, Rules of Interpretation. No provision of this Convention shall be interpreted as: […] b) restricting the enjoyment or exercise of any right of freedom recognized by virtue of the laws of any State Party or by virtue of another convention to which one of the said States is a party; […]. 11 I/A Court H.R., "Other Treaties” Subject to the Consultative Jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 64 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-1/82 of September 24, 1982. Series A ,No. 1, paragraph 41. 12 I/A Court H.R., “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C, No. 63, paragraph 194. “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” Case. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C, No. 112, paragraph 148, Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers Case. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C, No. 110, paragraph 166. I/A Court H.R., Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A, No. 17, paragraphs 24, 37, 53. 13 IACHR. Report No. 74/09 Mickey Alexis Mendoza Sánchez and Family, August 5, 2009, para. 29 and Report No. 72-09 Herson Javier Caro (Javier Apache) and Family, August 5, 2009, para. 34. 14 The relatives of alleged victims are included taking into account the provisions of Article 35.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and its case law. See I/A Court H.R. Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico Case. Judgment of November 23, 2009 and I/A Court of H.R., Judgment of January 19, 2009 González et al. Case (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Request to expand the number of alleged victims and denial of documentary evidence submission. 7