evident that the decision on admissibility or inadmissibility that the Commission must issue under the provisions of these articles must be with regard to the specific “petition or communication lodged” which contains the pertinent denunciation or complaint against a State Party to the Convention, owing to violation of this instrument, and not with regard to other and different subsequent requests, presentations, documents, measures or decisions. Similarly, on the same basis, it is beyond question that the said decision must, on the one hand, refer to the facts that the said petition refers to and, on the other, abide by its specific terms and, especially, what is requested or set forth in it. The articles of the Convention cited above, which are those that the Court must apply and interpret, 7 leave no margin of doubt in this regard, because they refer clearly, precisely, expressly, repeatedly, and only to the “petition or communication lodged.” In this regard, they contain a peremptory mandate and, consequently, do not concede any margin for an interpretation other than the one set forth that differs from that which the States Parties to the Convention really agreed to in this regard, and as they stated in these articles. However, as can be observed in the Judgment, this is not what happened in the instant case. It is a fact of the case that, as it states, the request that originated the case was lodged on October 12, 2005, and, in its own words, is a “petition and complaint against the State of Venezuela for the violation of human rights and due process of the victim Raúl José Díaz Peña, illegally detained … ,” for whom are requested “measures in favor of the victim, who has health problems that must be treated as soon as possible and, once this has been decided, that [the Commission] continue on to decide the merits of the petition.” The note accompanying the petition, of the same date, reiterates that “the following petition and complaint against the State of Venezuela [is lodged] for the violation of human rights and due process of the victim Raúl José Díaz Peña,” and then indicates the “human rights violated” in the context of the criminal proceedings that were underway against the victim at the time concerned, successively, the “prison conditions,” the “illegal detention” the “accusation against Raúl Díaz Peña,” the “irregularities in the proceedings,” the “violations of due process,” and the “procedural delay,” all of which occurred prior to the submission of the said petition. information has not been received, the Commission shall ascertain whether the grounds for the petition or communication still exist. If they do not, the Commission shall order the record to be closed. (c) The Commission may also declare the petition or communication inadmissible or out of order on the basis of information or evidence subsequently received. (d) If the record has not been closed, the Commission shall, with the knowledge of the parties, examine the matter set forth in the petition or communication in order to verify the facts. If necessary and advisable, the Commission shall carry out an investigation, for the effective conduct of which it shall request, and the states concerned shall furnish to it, all necessary facilities. (e) The Commission may request the states concerned to furnish any pertinent information and, if so requested, shall hear oral statements or receive written statements from the parties concerned. (f) The Commission shall place itself at the disposal of the parties concerned with a view to reaching a friendly settlement of the matter on the basis of respect for the human rights recognized in this Convention. 2. However, in serious and urgent cases, only the presentation of a petition or communication that fulfills all the formal requirements of admissibility shall be necessary in order for the Commission to conduct an investigation with the prior consent of the state in whose territory a violation has allegedly been committed.” 7 Art. 62(3) of the Convention: “The jurisdiction of the Court shall comprise all cases concerning the interpretation and application of the provisions of this Convention that are submitted to it, provided that the States Parties to the case recognize or have recognized such jurisdiction, whether by special declaration pursuant to the preceding paragraphs, or by a special agreement.” 2