submits a complaint on which a decision has already been taken by a human rights body, the latter must have addressed the concerns, including the relief. 124. Nevertheless, a possible scenario is that of a complaint which is, a priori, substantially identical to the one submitted to the Commission for analysis. In this respect, the European Court of Human Rights has a wealth of case law and analysis on the issue. Indeed, in its Article 35 para 2 b, the Convention provides that "The Court shall not deal with any application submitted under Article 34 that is substantially the same as a matter that has already been examined by the Court", It is therefore necessary to understand what the Court means by "same as a matter that has already been examined", 125. In its jurisprudence, the Human Rights Committee has shown that in grder for a case to be considered identical to the same complaint previouslyit:i,J~d with the, Court and therefore inadmissible, the Court examines whether the two, applitations brougfi~ l)efore it by the applicants relate essentially to the same persons; the same facts and the sa~ecomplaints21. In Nobili Massuero v. Italy, the European Court stated that "as regards the first limb of the Covernment's objection, the Court.recalls that, "under Article 35 § 2 (b) of the Convention, itdoes not deal with an application under Article 34 which is essentially the same as a case already examined, '!Zrovided",1f,at ~ti~J\j~s not contain any new relevant information. The Court notes that application ne. pQ531/96, although relating to the same set of proceedings, was lodged by a different applicant, namely Mr Francesco Nobili Massuero, the father of the present applicant. Consequently, the present application cannot be regarded as being substantially the same of the previous one"22 1 126. In this particular case, the Respondent State alleges that" the central claim of the present Communicationjiround which the oth~r allegations of rights violations are built is the right to self-determination, In that regard; it is alleged that the Commission has deliberated on the matter several times". The State:<:oncludes that, the matter has already been settled by the Commission in-Communication No. 266/03, and therefore, the Commission should deem the same inadmissible. 127. However, as oppo~ed to theabovej'fnentioned Communication, despite the fact that right to self-determination may seem to allegedly be central to the claim, the Commission observes no particular hierarchy to the claims pertaining to a Complaint in relation to rights provided for in the Charter. Indeed, the Complainants allege violations to other rights, resulting from a situation of instability which began in 2016, seven (7) years after the Commission rendered its decision in Communication No. 266/03. In this regard, the Commission finds it challenging to conclude that the current complaint is)2 Sp-0-gn...the ~ Ql'l1i'CM4tv ~ same facts. I': cP"'" (_cRFTAA'/-<1 "l'Yo' M;"':e~ 128. Further, the decision rendered by the Commission in 2009 involved Gunme and (thirteen) 13 others, while the current complaint had iniqa~ygb :\ en's..,ubplitt ct : i~" 151012006, UN Doc. CCPRICI951DI151 012006 (HRC 2009), ~ \0, AU·UA c" bttR;jjW.Ww.w.Q[Ldc.Q.urls ..c.omLhr.c./.e.ngLd.ecisjQDs~2_Q.Q9 ...Q3.,.3.(LY..QjDQY.iC._Y_QIQ.gti.a,blmtl:;.~;teKt.::tQkt~~~15tf:!~~.~~Q'~02..QZagLehl!:la%2Q.c..Q.~Q2.0..aw.au.1e..d..%2.0..Q.OJJ1P,M.s..alLQQ. '~'NIt: rr D::"~:· " Vojnov'c v. Croatia, Comm. 22 Application no. 58587100 by Ferdinanda NOBILl MASSUERO against Italy, ~ https:llhudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22Ltemid%22:[%220Ql-23859%22]} 21