C. Colorable claim 48. The Inter-American Commission must decide whether the alleged facts amount to a violation of the rights enshrined in the American Convention pursuant to the requirements of Article 47.b, or whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order,” as described in Article 47.c. At this stage of the proceedings, the Commission must perform a prima facie evaluation, not to establish the alleged violations of the American Convention, but to examine whether the petition alleges acts that could potentially constitute violations of the rights guaranteed in the American Convention. This determination does not entail the prejudgment of the merits of the case. 49. Neither the American Convention nor the IACHR’s Rules of Procedure require petitioners to identify the specific rights alleged to have been violated by the State in the matter submitted to the Commission, although they may do so if they wish. It falls to the Commission, on the basis of the system's jurisprudence, to determine in its reports on admissibility which provisions of the pertinent inter-American instruments are applicable, and the violation thereof may be established if the facts alleged are demonstrated with sufficient evidence. 50. The petitioners asserted that the imposition of a criminal conviction and civil penalties against the journalists and directors of a newspaper for having published an opinion column on a matter of significant public interest based on the argument that the opinion column constituted the offense of “serious criminal defamation of an authority” violates Article 13 of the American Convention to the detriment of the alleged victims. The petitioners additionally stated that the criminal case against them was based on a provision that was arbitrarily contrary to the American Convention and plagued by procedural irregularities, and therefore violated their rights. 51. The State, for its part, argued that the facts alleged in the petition do not describe a human rights violation, and that the petition therefore is manifestly groundless. It asserted that the IACHR’s review of these events would be tantamount to assuming the role of a fourth instance. 52. The Commission is of the opinion that the petitioners’ arguments concerning the potential violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 13, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof, are not manifestly groundless. The Commission notes, however, that no elements of fact and law are verified to discuss a possible violation of Articles 7 and 21 of the American Convention. 53. In this respect, it bears repeating that the Inter-American Commission has jurisdiction to declare a petition admissible and rule on its merits when it concerns a national court decision that may substantially affect a right guaranteed by the American Convention.6 In this case, the Commission must identify whether the requirements under the Convention have been met for the State imposition of subsequent liability for the abuse of the right to freedom of thought and expression, and whether the criminal proceedings that resulted in the conviction met the international standards of due process and access to justice. 54. In conclusion, the IACHR finds that this petition is neither “manifestly groundless” nor “obviously out of order,” and therefore declares that the petitioner has met prima facie the requirements established in Article 47.b. of the American Convention with respect to potential violations of Articles 8, 13 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to the general obligations enshrined in Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof, as stated above. V. CONCLUSIONS 6 See, IACHR, Report No. 32/07, Petition 452-05. Juan Patricio Marielo Saravia et al. (Chile), May 2, 2007, para. 57; Report No. 1/03, Case 12.221, Jorge Omar Gutiérrez (Argentina), February 20, 2003, para. 46, citing Report No. 39/96, Case 11.673, Marzioni, Argentina, October 15, 1996, paras. 50-51. See, IACHR, Report No. 4/04, Petition 12.324, Rubén Luis Godoy (Argentina), February 24, 2004, para. 44. 10