the organic law of the Council of Judges, and that there are no constitutional, legal, or regulatory provisions that allow the discretionary dismissal of judges, whether regular, alternate, temporary, or provisional. And, thirdly and finally, the petitioner questions the power of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme Court of Justice to dismiss judges, arguing that this is the exclusive purview of the Operations and Organization Committee of the Judicial System. 35. The Commission is of the opinion that in this stage of the proceedings, it is not appropriate to establish whether or not there is a violation of the American Convention. For the purposes of admissibility, the IACHR must decide whether the facts set forth characterize a violation, as stipulated in Article 47.b of the American Convention, and whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order,” pursuant to subparagraph (c) of that Article. 36. The standard for assessing these allegations is different from the one required to decide on the merits of a petition. The IACHR must conduct a prima facie evaluation to determine whether the petition provides grounds for the apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention and not to establish the existence of a violation. This evaluation is a summary analysis which does not entail a prejudgment of or an advance opinion on the merits. The Commission’s Rules of Procedure, on establishing two distinct stages of admissibility and merits, reflect this distinction between the evaluation required of the Commission in determining the admissibility of a petition and the examination required to establish a violation. 37. The Commission considers that in view of the importance of the stability of judges to ensure the independence and impartiality of the judiciary in a democratic society, even provisional, alternate, or temporary judges should enjoy minimal due process before being removed. 6 The Commission believes that if the allegations are proven to be true, namely that the alleged victim was dismissed by an organ that was neither authorized to do so nor impartial, and that the guarantees of due process for challenging such a decision were not observed, these acts could characterize violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, all of which would be considered in connection with the general obligations specified in Articles 1 and 2 of that instrument, in light of the case law of the inter-American system. The Commission is also of the opinion that in the event that the petitioner’s allegations, to the effect that she did not have access to public office on conditions of equality, are proven to be true, they could also constitute violations of Articles 23.1.c and 24 of the American Convention. Finally, in view of the petitioner’s allegations, it is important to point out that Article 29 of the Convention will be used in its entirety in this as well as in all matters, as a guide for interpreting the obligations of the State under the Convention. 38. Therefore, the allegations of the petitioner do not appear to be manifestly groundless or obviously out of order. V. CONCLUSIONS 39. The Commission concludes that the case is admissible and that it is competent to examine the complaint lodged by the petitioner regarding the alleged violation of the right to a fair trial (Article 8), the right to participate in government (Article 23), the right to equal protection (Article 24), and the right to judicial protection (Article 25), all considered in the context of the general obligation established in Article 1.1 and the duty established in Article 2 of the Convention, and in accordance with the requirements established in Articles 46 and 47 of that instrument. 40. On the basis of the factual and legal arguments set forth above, and without prejudice to the merits of the case, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, DECIDES: 6 See I/A Court H.R., Constitutional Court Case. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71. 6