the 1970s, and Law 19.992, establishing a compensatory pension for the victims of political imprisonment and torture, was adopted in December 2004, some 30 years after the facts took place. Consequently, the Commission concludes that the petition at hand was presented within a reasonable time. 3. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 49. There is nothing in the file to indicate that the substance of the petition is pending in any other international proceeding for settlement, or that it is substantially the same as any petition previously studied by the Commission or other international body. Hence, the requirements set forth in Articles 46(1)(c) of the Convention have been met. 4. Characterization of the facts alleged 50.The Commission notes that the petition raises questions about the denial of justice through failure to make civil reparations to the relatives of a victim of grave human rights violations, and that these are compounded by criminal impunity through application of an amnesty law. The petitioners argue that the American Convention guarantees access to justice to all persons to indicate rights that have been violated. Consequently, the Commission concludes that the petitioners’ complaint describes facts that, if proven, could constitute violations of the rights protected by Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation with the obligations of Articles 1(1) and 2, and that the requirements of Article 47(b) are thereby fulfilled. V. CONCLUSION 51. The Commission concludes that the case is admissible and the Commission is competent to examine the claim submitted by the petitioners relating to alleged violations of Articles 8 and 25, in relation with the obligations of Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention, in accordance with the requirements established in Article 46 of that treaty 52. By virtue of the arguments of fact and of law set forth above, and without prejudging the merits of the case, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS DECIDES: 1. To declare the petition admissible with respect to 8 and 25 of the American Convention, taken in concordance with Articles 1(1) and 2 of that instrument. 2. To transmit this report to the State and to the petitioners. 3. To continue its examination of the merits of the case. 4. To publish this decision and to include it in its Annual Report to the OAS General Assembly. Done and signed at the headquarters of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, in Washington, D.C., on the 12th day of October 2005. (Signed): Clare K. Roberts, President; Susana Villarán, First Vice-President; Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, Second Vice-President; Commissioners Evelio Fernández Arévalos, Freddy Gutiérrez, and Florentín Meléndez. 10