14 evaluation thereof. The Commission also notes that the petitioners have contended that no judge has been able to evaluate the evidence in the case file and that the final decision was taken by the investigating authority, which recommended and authorized on several occasions to “not bring criminal action,” even though the investigation had yielded information on individuals who testified to knowing about the alleged perpetrators of the murder of Mrs. Ochoa. The Commission does not concur with the State in its claim that in analyzing the merits of this petition it would be acting as a “third instance,” thus overstepping the sphere of its competence. In this regard, the IACHR reiterates that “the Commission cannot review the judgments issued by the domestic courts acting within their competence and with due judicial guarantees," 10 nor “serve as an appellate court to examine alleged errors of internal law or fact that may have been committed by the domestic courts acting within their jurisdiction," 11 however, as part of its mandate to ensure observance of the rights provided for in the Convention, the Commission is necessarily competent to find a petition admissible and examine the grounds thereof, when the petition involves a domestic decision that is alleged to not adhere to the principles of due process of the law, or is an apparent violation of any other right protected by the Convention. 62. Additionally, the Commission notes that in similar cases pertaining to due diligence in the investigation of deaths where the theory of the investigating authority is suicide and the petitioners allege irregularities in the investigation, the European Court of Human Rights has found admissible and heard the merits of the petitions establishing that there is a positive obligation of the State to conduct an effective investigation of the circumstances of what appears to be a suicide. 12 The IACHR has also found admissible a petition alleging violations in the investigation into a violent death for which the theory of the investigating authority is suicide. 13 63. 64. Accordingly, the Commission finds that based on the submissions of both parties, the allegations of the petitioners are not “manifestly groundless” nor “obviously out of order.” Therefore, in keeping with precedents and the arguments of the parties in the instant case, it finds that the arguments See, in general, IACHR, Report Nº 101/00, Case 11.630 Arauz et al (Nicaragua), October 16, 2000, in Annual Report of the IACHR, 2000, paragraph 56, citing IACHR, Report Nº 39/96, Case 11.673, Marzioni (Argentina), October 15, 1996, in Annual Report of the IACHR, 1996, paragraphs 50 and 51. 10 11 IACHR, Report Nº 7/01, Case 11.716 Güelfi (Panama), February 23, 2001, Report Nº 39/96, Case 11.673, Marzioni (Argentina), October 15, 1996, in Annual Report of the IACHR, 1996, paragraphs 50 and 51. 12 So, for example, the European Court has found a case admissible in which the theory of the investigating authority was suicide noting that one of several obligations of the State is “an effective investigation into the circumstances of what appears to be a suicide” See ECHR, Sergey Shevchenko vs. Ukraine, no. 32478/02, § 56. Additionally, in the case of Masneva v. Ukraine, the European Court held that in examining the merits of this type of case, it must be analyzed whether “all the evidence is properly analyzed and the conclusions are consistent and reasoned.” In said case, the European Court stressed that it would be “it would be inappropriate and contrary to its subsidiary role under the Convention to attempt to establish the facts of this case on its own, duplicating the efforts of the domestic authorities which are better placed and equipped for that purpose.” It further stated: “Following its well-established practice, it will confine the examination of this application to an evaluation of the domestic investigation into the matter as regards its overall compliance with the aforementioned standards [referring to the legal precedents of the European Court regarding Article 2 of the Convention].” Cfr. ECHR, Masneva v. Ukraine, no. 5952/07, § 49 ,51. 13 In this regard, the IACHR found admissible a case in which the State, in contradiction to the petitioners, claimed that the alleged victim had committed suicide, taking into consideration how long the investigation has been going on, as well as arguments of the petitioners pertaining to alleged irregularities in the investigation, such as some of the evidence pointing to the death not being a suicide; that the statements of eye witnesses were conflicting and that some forensic tests performed on the body of the alleged victim showed that the injuries of the alleged victim were compatible with the theory of homicide. See IACHR, Report No. 83/07, José Iván Correa Arévalo, October 16, 2007, par. 54.