if the allegations state facts that tend to establish a violation of the American Convention, as provided in Article 47(b) of same, and if the petition is "manifestly groundless" or "obviously out of order," in accordance with paragraph (c) of this article. The standard for identifying these extremes is different from the one used to judge the merits of a complaint. At this stage, the IACHR must make a prima facie evaluation, which does not imply a preliminary judgment or the issuance of an opinion on the substance. Its own Rules of Procedure reflect this distinction between the evaluation it must carry out to declare a petition admissible and the one required to determine if there is indeed State responsibility, by establishing clearly differentiated stages for assessment of admissibility and assessment of the merits. 56. On the basis of the facts stated by the petitioner, the Commission considers that the allegations made are neither "manifestly groundless" nor "obviously out of order" and that, if proven correct, they could constitute an infringement of the right to equal protection of the law recognized in Article 24 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1.1 and 2 of said international instrument. 57. The IACHR considers that the circumstances described by the petitioner do not tend to establish an alleged violation of the right to a nationality enshrined in Article 20 of the American Convention because he has not been forced to change his citizenship and because this citizenship has not been affected by any public or government act. The IACHR also considers that the facts described by the petitioner do not tend to establish violations of Article 26 of the Convention. The situation described in this particular case, prima facie, can not be considered as a regression measure adopted by the State with respect the rights invoked by the petitioner. 58. Inasmuch as these aspects of the complaint are not obviously groundless or out of order, the Commission considers the requirements established in Article 47(b) and (c) of the American Convention to have been met with regard to the aforementioned aspect of the complaint, given that the situation described could constitute an infringement of Article 24 of the American Convention in conjunction with Articles 1.1 and 2 of said international instrument. IV. CONCLUSION 59. On the basis of the above legal and factual considerations, the Commission concludes that, with respect to the alleged violation of Article 24 of the American Convention, the case under consideration meets the admissibility requirements established in Article 46 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1.1 and 2 of said international instrument. 60. It further concludes that it is inadmissible with respect to the alleged violation of Articles 20 and 26 of the American Convention. THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS DECIDES: 1. To declare this case admissible with respect to Article 24 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1.1 and 2 of said international instrument. 2. To declare the petition inadmissible with respect to the alleged violation of Articles 20 and 26 of the American Convention.