was submitted within a reasonable time and that the admissibility requirement of timeliness of submission has been met. 3. Duplication of procedures and international res judicata 100. It does not appear from the record that the subject matter of the petition is pending before another international proceeding for settlement, nor does it reproduce a petition that has already been examined by this or another international organization. Therefore, the requirements established at Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention have been met. 4. Characterization of the facts alleged 101. In view of the elements of fact and law described and the nature of the matter before it, the IACHR considers that the petitioners’ allegations on the judicial proceeding brought against Allan Brewer Carías could tend to establish possible violations of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection protected at Articles 2, 8, 13, and 25 of the American Convention in relation to the general obligations established at Article 1(1) of the same instrument. And as the claim is not manifestly groundless or obviously out of order, the Commission considers that the requirements established at Articles 47(b) and (c) of the American Convention have been satisfied. 102. With regard to the alleged violation of the right established in Article 13 of the American Convention, the petitioners claim that the political persecution Allan Brewer Carías would be subjected to would affect his right to freedom of expression, thus, the Commission considers that this aspect of the petition should be examined in the analysis on the merits stage. 103. With regard to the alleged violation of the right to honor and dignity established in Article 11 of the Convention, the Commission finds that this claim is subsumed in the claim regarding the alleged violation of Article 8(2) of the American Convention, and, therefore, it is considered inadmissible. 104. With regard to the claims of the alleged violation of the right to personal security, the right to freedom of movement and residence, and the right to equal protection established in Articles 7, 22 and 24, the Commission notes that the petitioners have claimed that the alleged violation of these rights derived from the manner in which the judicial proceeding against Allan Brewer Carías was conducted, but they have not submitted sufficient elements to show that the alleged facts could constitute a violation of the same. Therefore, those allegations are considered inadmissible. V. CONCLUSIONS 105. Based on the foregoing considerations of fact and law, and without prejudging on the merits, the Inter-American Commission concludes that the instant case meets the admissibility requirements set forth at Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, with regard to the allegations relating to Articles 1, 2, 8, 13 and 25, and that the allegations with regard to Articles 7, 11, 22 and 24 are inadmissible. Accordingly, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, DECIDES: 1.To find the petition under study admissible, in relation to Articles 2, 8, 13, and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument. 2.To find the petition under study inadmissible in relation to Articles 7, 11, 22, and 24. 3.To notify the State and the petitioner of this decision. 22