6 petition was presented within a reasonable period of time in the terms of the IACHR Rules of Procedure and in keeping with its practice in similar cases. D. Duplication of proceedings and international and res judicata 40. Nothing in the file of the instant case indicate that the subject matter of the petition is pending in another international proceeding for settlement or that it is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international human rights body. The requirements established in Articles 46.1.c and 47.d of the Convention have therefore been satisfied. E. Characterization of the alleged facts 41. For the purposes of admissibility, the Commission must decide whether the alleged facts tend to establish a rights violation, as stipulated in Article 47.b of the American Convention, or whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order,” as described in Article 47.c. The level of conviction regarding those standards is different from that required in deciding on the merits of a complaint; the IACHR must perform a summary prima facie evaluation, not to establish the existence of a violation, but to examine if the petition establishes grounds for the apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention. This determination involves a summary analysis, which does not imply a prejudgment or advance opinion on the substance of the matter.6 42. In view of the elements of fact and law presented by the parties and the nature of the matter put before it, the IACHR considers that the facts alleged by the petitioners tend to constitute violations of rights protected in Articles 4 and 5 of the American Convention to the detriment of the seven alleged victims named in paragraph 1 of this report, in connection with Article 1.1 of the same treaty; and of Articles 5, 8, and 25 of the American Convention to the detriment of Ms. Lorenza Pérez de Olivares and the other nextof-kin of the alleged victims who may be identified in the merits stage, pursuant to Article 1.1 of that treaty. 43. The IACHR deems that although the petitioners did not specifically allege the violation of Article 8 of the American Convention, they did raise allegations of unwarranted delay in the investigation and punishment of the parties responsible for the alleged acts. Analysis of the possible violation of Article 8 of the Convention is therefore appropriate during the examination of the merits of the instant case. V. CONCLUSIONS 44. In accordance with arguments of fact and law set out above, and without prejudging the merits of the case, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, DECIDES: 1. To declare this petition admissible with respect to Articles 4, 5, 8, and 25, of the American Convention on Human Rights, in connection with Article 1.1 thereof. 2. To notify the Venezuelan State and the petitioners of this decision. 3. To continue with its analysis of the merits of the case. 4. To publish this decision and include it in its annual report to the OAS General Assembly. 6 See in general: 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.