46. Articles 47(b) and (c) of the Convention and Articles 34(a) and (b) of the IACHR’s Rules of Procedure require that it consider a petition to be inadmissible if it does not state claims that tend to establish a violation of the rights guaranteed by the Convention or by another applicable instrument, or if the statements made by the petitioner or by the State indicate that the petition is manifestly groundless. 47. The petitioners in this case expressly invoke the violation of Articles 5, 7, and 8(1) of the American Convention and I, II, y XI of the Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons. The State has not offered any observations on the violations claimed by the petitioners. 48. The IACHR has been able to verify that file N° 142 of the Office of the Public Prosecutor [Ministerio Público Fiscal] contains direct imputations such as that, on September 26, 2003, Mr. Iván Eladio Torres was detained by officers of the Radioelectric Command of the Regional Unit of the Chubut Police and taken to the First Police Station, where he was not registered as an incoming detainee in the official records. It further confirms that on the night of October 2, 2003 he was last seen moments before mobile unit No. 469 from the First Police Station was circulating on roads in the vicinity of the place where Mr. Iván Eladio Torres was waiting for his friends Patricio Oliva and Gerardo Colin.16 The IACHR has also established that the Special Fiscal Investigation Unit [Unidad Especial de Investigación Fiscal] created by Resolution N° 47/04 of the Office of the General Public Prosecutor of Chubut Province believes that the now disappeared Iván Eladio Torres was, on other occasions, threatened with death, subjected to a simulated execution, and detained by police officers without justification, all of this according to testimony obtained by the aforementioned Special Unit.17 49. Based on the information provided by the petitioners, and without prejudging the merits of the matter, the IACHR concludes that the petition contains allegations of fact that, should they be proven, would tend to establish violations of the rights to personal integrity, to personal liberty, and to a fair trial protected by Articles 5 (1), 5(2), 7, and 8(1) in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the American Convention, and Articles I, II, and XI of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. The IACHR, by virtue of the principle of iura curia novit, also considers that the alleged facts, should they be found to be true, could establish violations of the obligation to adopt domestic legislative measures and the right to prompt recourse enshrined in Articles 2 and 25, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the Convention. Moreover, the IACHR deems it necessary to assess the situation relative to the violation of Article 4 of the Convention during the merits stage, as well as the possible application of Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. The IACHR concludes that the information provided by the petitioners is not manifestly groundless or extemporaneous. As a result, the complaints contained in the petition are not inadmissible under Article 47(b) and 47(c) of the Convention, and Article 34(a) and (b) of the Regulations of the IACHR. V. CONCLUSIONS 16 Judgment of March 16, 2005, of the Superior Court of Justice of Chubut in response to the revocation remedy filed by the petitioners and described in para. 30. 17 Ibid.