D. Duplication of proceedings 48. Nothing in the case file suggests that the subject matter 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 organization. Therefore, the Commission considers that the requirements established in 46(1) (c) and 47(d) have been met. E. Characterization of the facts alleged 49. As the Commission has held in previous cases, at this stage of the proceeding, it is not called upon to establish whether a violation of the American Convention actually occurred. For admissibility purposes, the Commission must determine only whether the petition states facts that, if proven, would establish violations of rights protected by the American Convention, as Article 47(b) stipulates, or whether a petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order”, as Article 47(c) stipulates. The standard for assessing admissibility is different from the one used to decide the merits of a petition. For admissibility, the Commission need only make a prima facie analysis, which does not imply any prejudgment or preliminary opinion on the merits. By distinguishing two clearly demarcated phases –one for admissibility and the other for the merits- the Commission’s own Rules of Procedure reflect the distinction between the assessment that the Commission must make for purposes of declaring a petition admissible, and the one required to establish whether a violation has in fact occurred. 50. The petitioners point out that the complaint states facts that, prima facie, would establish violations of their rights. They state that the law upon which the dismissals were based violated their right of defense, as it not only prevented them from gaining access to information that was important to understanding the evaluation process, but also established outright that the findings of the evaluation were not subject to appeal. They also point out that the law and other measures taken by the executive branch of government to co-opt the judicial branch created a climate of judicial insecurity and lack of judicial protection that prevented them from obtaining a judicial solution, despite having turned to the courts. The petitioners also indicate that the efforts the State made to redress some of the consequences of the violations in no way affect the Commission’s jurisdiction to remain seized of the case. 51. The State argues that the situation that the petitioners originally denounced has changed considerably due to the fact that a number of the petitioners voluntarily accepted some of the benefits that the State offered as a way of redressing the ill-effects experienced by the dismissed employees. Therefore, by the State’s line of reasoning, the point of the case that the Commission has under study would be moot. 52. The Commission considers pertinent to review this allegation, based on the information supplied by the parties, and the decisions of the Commission and the Court on the subject. 53. First, the Commission recalls the case law that the Inter-American Court introduced in the Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers vs. Peru where the Court wrote that: 10