by another international body. Therefore, inadmissibility requirements set forth in Articles 46.1 (c) and 47 (d) of the Convention and Articles 33.1.a and 33.1.b of the Rules do not apply. 4. Colorable claim 30. The Commission must decide if the facts alleged tend to establish a violation of protected rights, under Articles 47 (b) of the American Convention and 34 (a) of the Rules of Procedure, or if the petition is ‘manifestly groundless’ or ‘obviously out of order,’ under Articles 47 (c) of the American Convention and 34 (b) of the Rules. The assessment criteria for admissibility differs from that used for the assessment of the merits of the petition, since the Commission only undertakes a prima facie assessment to determine whether the petitioners have established the apparent or possible violation of a right protected by the American Convention on Human Rights. It is a general analysis not involving a prejudgment of, or issuance of a preliminary opinion on the merits of the matter. 31. Moreover, the corresponding legal instruments do not require a petitioner to identify the specific rights allegedly violated by the State in the matter brought before the Commission, although petitioners may do so. It is for the Commission, based on the system's jurisprudence, to determine in its admissibility report which provisions of the relevant Inter-American instruments are applicable and could be found to have been violated if the alleged facts are proven by sufficient elements. 32. The petitioner argues that the State’s arbitrary appointment of a public defender in order to hold the hearing in the criminal proceedings, on the date these began; the consequent lack of time for her to prepare, along with the consequences brought by the fact that the public defender ignored the case against Mr. Álvarez at the moment of assisting the alleged victim concerning his preliminary examination statement and examining the witness and expert witness, resulted in violations to the rights set forth in Articles 8.1 and 8.2 (c), (d), (f) and (g) of the American Convention. She also alleges that Mr. Álvarez’s official defense committed a series of mistakes during the preliminary proceedings, which violated the right set forth in 8.2 (e) of the above instrument. Moreover, she argues that the legal remedies lodged were dismissed without prior examination of the merits of the matter, due to formal issues contrary to the essence of the right to appeal a judgment to a judge or a higher court as set forth in Articles 8.2 (h) and 25 of the Convention. She also argues that the alleged victim was handcuffed throughout the hearing, which violated the right to the recognition of dignity under Article 11.1 of said instrument. 33. In turn, the State says that the appointment of an official public defender on the same date that the hearing began was precisely done to safeguard the accused’s rights to adequate legal representation and a fair trial as established by the Convention. Concerning the remedies lodged by the alleged victim, the State argues that all of them were duly assessed and processed by the judicial authorities. As to the fact that the alleged victim was handcuffed throughout the hearing, the State alleges that said measure was necessary due to his previous runaway attempts, and that this decision was made after a completely independent procedure and that, as a result, it cannot be seen as a prejudgment about the alleged victim’s situation. 34. In view of the elements of fact and law filed by the petitioners, along with the nature of the matter brought to its attention, the IACHR believes that, if proved, the facts alleged may tend to establish possible violations of the human rights protected by Articles 8, 11 and 25 of the American Convention in agreement with Article 1.1 of said legal instrument. The Commission will analyze in the merits report the alleged violations of due process as well as the necessity and proportionality of the measure of keeping Mr. Álvarez handcuffed during the hearing, according to Article 11 of the Convention. V. CONCLUSIONS 35. Based on the above elements of fact and law, the Inter-American Commission concludes that this petition meets the admissibility requirements set forth in Articles 31 to 34 of the Rules and Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, and without prejudgment of the merits of the matter, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 5