of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. It should be made clear that the causes and the effects that have impeded the exhaustion of domestic remedies in the instant case shall be examined, as appropriate, in the Report that the Commission shall adopt on the merits of the controversy, in order to establish whether they indeed are violations of the American Convention. 2. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 31. The record of the petition does not contain any information which may tend to establish that the subject of the petition is pending in another international proceeding for settlement; or that it has been previously decided by the Inter-American Commission. Therefore, the IACHR concludes that the exceptions provided for by Articles 46(1)(d) and 47(c) of the American Convention are not applicable. 3. Characterization of the facts alleged 32. In the instant case, the petitioners contend that the State is responsible for alleged violations of the rights to personal integrity, to personal liberty, to due process, to the right of judicial protection, of the right of women to a life free from violence, of the right to a life free from torture, as well as the duty of the State to respect and guarantee the rights of the individuals under its jurisdiction. The Mexican State, in turn, maintains that domestic remedies have not yet been exhausted. 33. It is the opinion of the Commission that it is not appropriate at this stage of the process to establish whether or not the alleged violations occurred. For purposes of admissibility, the IACHR must decide whether the facts put forward tend to establish possible violations of the Conventions, as provided for by Article 47(b) of the American Convention. 34. The criterion to evaluate these points is different from the one required to decide on the merits of a complaint. The Inter-American Commission must carry out a prima facie evaluation, to examine whether the complaint contains any apparent violation or violations of the American Convention. This analysis is preliminary, and does not constitute prejudgment or the advancement of an opinion on the merits of the matter. 35. The arguments of the petitioners refer to facts that, should they be true, would constitute a violation of several rights guaranteed by the American Convention, the Convention of Belém do Pará and the Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. The IACHR believes that the facts put forward require a more thorough and complete study at the merits stage. In addition, although the petitioners have not invoked Articles 11 and 19 of the American Convention on Human Rights or Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, based on the principle iura novit curia, the Commission will hear arguments related to alleged violations of said Articles. 36. It is the opinion of the IACHR that, should the facts be proven, they would constitute the violation of the rights of Valentina Rosendo Cantú guaranteed by Articles 5(1), 7, 8(1), 11, 19, and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1 (1) of said instrument. Likewise, it is of the opinion that the facts put forward could constitute possible violations of Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, and of Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. 37. Based on the aforementioned, the IACHR concludes that the petitioners haveprima facie met the requirements established by Article 47 (b) of the American Convention. V. CONCLUSIONS 38. The Inter-American Commission concludes that it is competent to examine the merits of the instant case, and that the petition is admissible pursuant to Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. Based on the foregoing arguments in fact and in law, and without prejudging on the merits of the case, 7