7 37. For the purposes of admissibility, the Commission must decide whether the facts alleged tend to establish a violation of rights, pursuant to the provisions of article 47(b) of the American Convention, or, pursuant to paragraph (c) of same, if the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order.” The criterion for the evaluation of these requirements is different from the one used to decide on the petition’s merits; the Commission must carry out a prima facie evaluation to determine whether the petition provides grounds for a possible or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention, but not to establish whether an infringement of rights has occurred. This determination 1 constitutes a preliminary analysis that does not entail prejudgment on the merits of the case. 38. The Commission notes that the petition’s chief contention is that the transfer of the alleged victims to locations that are considerably distant from their place of residence infringed certain rights protected by the American Convention, such as the right to humane treatment and the rights of the family. They claim that their housing in penitentiary units such as Unit No. 6 of Rawson, eight hundred miles from Neuquén made access of their next in kin inordinately difficult and entailed a form of uprooting of them from their community. The State, in turn, has held that the measures taken were lawful, and that the mere fact of their transfer out of the jurisdiction of their province did not per se mean that the inmates were subjected to cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. 39. In this respect, it is the opinion of the Inter-American Commission that the distance between a person’s place of residence and the facility where he or she is incarcerated constitutes one of a set of conditions of detention of that person. In the instant case, the transfer of the alleged victims to places distant from their place of residence could constitute a disproportionate measure that could unjustifiably worsen their incarceration, and could constitute a real obstacle to the maintenance of family ties. Therefore, at the merits stage, the Commission must determine if the application of this measure in fact has infringed the rights to humane treatment and the rights of the family provided for by the American Convention. 40. In the light of the arguments in fact and in law submitted by the parties and the nature of the matter of which it has taken cognizance, the IACHR considers that the facts alleged by the petitioners tend to establish possible violations of the rights protected by articles 5 and 17 of the American Convention, in connection with article 1(1) of same. V. CONCLUSIONS 41. The Commission concludes that it is competent to examine the claims submitted by the petitioners regarding the alleged violation of articles 5 and 17 in connection with 1(1) of the American Convention with prejudice to Néstor Rolando López, Miguel Ángel González Mendoza, José Heriberto Muñoz Zavala, Hugo Alberto Blanco, and those next of kin that will be identified at the merits stage, and that the claims are admissible pursuant to the requirements established by articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. 42. The Commission also concludes that the petition is inadmissible with respect to the claims submitted on behalf of Julio Eduardo Gómez, Cristian Eduardo Crespo, Juan Pablo Lucero, Néstor Zacarías Pardo, Eduardo Enrique Aguilera de la Hoz, Mario Leonardo Aguilera de la Hoz, Omar Garrido, Héctor Darío Sánchez, Aldo Manuel Omán, Raúl Colicheo, Alfredo Guzmán and Héctor Sosa. 43. of the case, Based on the foregoing arguments in fact and in law and without prejudging on the merits THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS DECIDES: 1 Among other precedents, see: IACHR, Report No. 12/10, Case 12.106, Admissibility, Enrique Hermann Pfister Frías and Lucrecia Pfister Frías, Argentina, March 16, 2010, para. 46; IACHR, Report No. 10/10, Petition No. 214-08, Admissibility, Koempai et al., Suriname, March 16, 2010, para. 43.