application supports an apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention, without establishing the existence of the violation. All that is called for at this point is a summary analysis, without prejudging or advancing an opinion on the merits. The Rules of Procedure of the Commission itself, by establishing two different stages for admissibility and substance, reflect this distinction between assessments made to admit a petition and to establish a violation. 28. In the view of the Commission, the State's arguments that no violation of judicial protection took place do not address the issue of admissibility by showing that the petition is manifestly groundless or clearly out of order. Those arguments will be examined by the Commission when dealing with the merits of the case. 29. The Commission finds that the arguments put forward by the petitioners are not manifestly groundless. The allegations concerning the establishment of an ex-post-facto Special Committee lacking in legal authority to impose a penalty, a Committee that is furthermore alleged to have followed a procedure inconsistent with due process of law, could constitute, if proven, violations of Articles 8 and 9 of the American Convention. When dealing with the substance of the matter, the Commission will also examine whether Mr. Colindres' separation from office violated Article 23.1.c of the Convention, 3 and whether the Tribunal's refusal to rule on the alleged violations during the constitutional protection hearing violated Article 25 of the Convention. All these articles will be examined in connection with the general provisions in Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention, as habitually done in the case law of the Inter-American system. 30. On the other hand, the Commission finds that the petitioners have not presented facts that might be characterized as a separate violation of the right to protection of a person's honor and dignity. Consequently, the petition is ruled inadmissible in regard to Article 11 of the Convention. V. CONCLUSION 31. The Commission concludes that the case is admissible and that the Commission has jurisdiction to hear the petitioners' claim concerning alleged violations of Articles 1, 2, 8, 11, 23 and 25 of the American 3 See IACHR, Report 24/05 (Admissibility). Ana María Ruggeri Cova et al., Venezuela, March 8, 2005, paragraph 45. 8