54. The Commission takes note that the facts are alleged to have taken place February 25, 2008, and that the petition was filed with the IACHR on April 14, 2009. Because of this, the IACHR considers that the petition was filed within a reasonable time. D. Duplication of procedures and international res judicata 55. Article 46(1)(c) of the Convention provides that the admissibility of petitions is subject to the requirement that the matter “is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement” and Article 47(d) of the Convention stipulates that the Commission will not admit a petition that substantially reproduces a prior petition or communication already examined by the Commission or another international organization. 56. It does not appear from the record that the subject matter of the petition is pending another procedure for international settlement, nor that it reproduces a petition already examined by this or any other international body. Therefore, the requirements established at Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) have been satisfied. E. Characterization of the facts alleged 57. For purposes of admissibility the Commission must decide whether the petition states facts that tend to establish a violation, as stipulated at Article 47(b) of the American Convention, whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or whether it is “obviously out of order,” as per Article 47(c). The standard of appreciation in applying these rules is different from that required to decide on the merits of a complaint. The Commission must perform a prima facie evaluation to examine whether the complaint established the basis for the apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention and not to establish the existence of a violation. Such a review is a summary analysis that does not imply any prejudice or a preliminary opinion on the merits. 58. The American Convention and the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR do not require the petitioner to identify the petitioner to identify the specific rights alleged to be violated by the State in the matter submitted to the Commission, although the petitioners may do so. It is up to the Commission, based on the caselaw of the system, to determine in its admissibility reports which provisions of the relevant inter-American instruments are applicable and which could be determined to be violated if the facts alleged are proven by sufficient evidence. 59. In view of the information presented in the admissibility phase, the IACHR considers that the facts that are the subject matter of the claim regarding the alleged illegal and arbitrary detention of Luis Alberto Rojas Marín and the alleged commission of acts of torture and other cruel and degrading treatment directed against him, as well as the lack of judicial clarification of these facts, could tend to establish violations of the rights enshrined in Articles 5 (right to humane treatment), 7 (right to personal liberty), 11 (right to respect for honor and dignity), 8 (right to a fair trial), and 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations established at Articles 1(1) (obligation to respect and ensure) and 2 (obligation to adopt provisions of domestic law) of the same instrument, and of the obligations to prevent and punish torture established in Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. In addition, the Commission considers that the facts that are the subject matter of the claim tend to establish a violation of Article 5 (right to humane treatment) of the American Convention to the detriment of the mother of Luis Alberto Rojas Marín, Juana Rosa Tanta Marín. 60. As regards the alleged commission of acts of discrimination to the detriment of Luis Alberto Marín, the Commission observes that given the arguments made in relation to discriminatory treatment by various state agents – in the context of the detention and taking of evidence, such as the statement and the forensic medical exam – the determination as to the possible responsibility of the State for the alleged violation of the right established in Article 24 (equal protection) of the America Convention, in connection with Article 1(1) of the same treaty, is to be made in the merits phase. 10