both instruments and do not describe a situation of continuous violation. In addition, the Commission ruled that the petitioner’s allegations regarding Articles 24 and 25 of the Convention were also admissible. 4. The right to work and fair remuneration (Article XIV) is set forth in the Declaration but not in the Convention; however, the Commission believes that this circumstance does not preclude its competence in the matter since, under Article 29(d) of the Convention, “no provision of this Convention shall be interpreted as [. . .] excluding or limiting the effect that the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and other international acts of the same nature may have.” Hence, the Commission ruled that the petitioner’s accusations regarding the alleged violation of this provision enshrined in the Declaration were also admissible. II. PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION 5. On December 9 and 13, 1996, respectively, the Commission received complaints alleging that the rights of Ms. Perrone and Mr. Preckel had been violated; since they dealt with similar matters, the two files were accumulated, and they were sent to the State on April 23, 1997. On July 25 and September 4, 1997, the State requested two successive extensions, which were granted on July 31 and September 15, 1997, respectively. On October 31, 1997, the State submitted its comments; these were sent to the petitioner on November 6, 1997. The petitioner replied on January 6, 1998, and this response was transmitted to the State on February 10, 1998. 6. On February 26, 1998, during its 98th regular session, the Commission held a hearing for the parties to examine the admissibility of the case. The petitioner’s note arising from that meeting was sent to the State on March 6, 1998. On March 10, 1998, the Commission wrote to the parties, making itself available in order to reach a friendly settlement. On March 13, 1998, the State submitted its comments and, on April 13, 1998, it requested additional time before it could present its decision on the Commission’s proposal for friendly settlement negotiations. This extension was granted on May 26. On June 17, 1998, the petitioner submitted its comments, which were forwarded to the State on July 14, 1998, together with an additional copy of the May 26 note. On July 22, 1998, the State submitted its comments and, on July 24, 1998, it repeated the position it had held in previous communications, maintaining that this case was inadmissible and declining the friendly settlement procedure. 2