3. Duplication of proceedings and international res judicata 36. The case file does not indicate that the subject of the petition is pending in another international proceeding for settlement, nor that it reproduces a petition already examined by this or any other international body. Therefore, the requirements established in Articles 46.1 c) and 47 d) of the Convention should be deemed to have been met. 4. Colorable claims 37. For admissibility purposes, the Commission must decide whether the petition presents facts that tend to establish a violation as stipulated in Article 47 b) of the American Convention, and whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “out of order” in accordance with paragraph c) of the same article. In this phase of the procedure, the Commission must perform a prima facie evaluation not to establish alleged violations of the American Convention but to examine whether the petition reports facts that could tend to establish violations of rights enshrined in that instrument. This examination does not involve prejudgment nor an advance opinion regarding the merits of the case.5 38. Neither the American Convention nor the IACHR Rules of Procedure require the petitioners to identify the specific rights that are allegedly violated by the State in the matter submitted to the Commission, although petitioners may do so. In contrast, the Commission, based on the jurisprudence of the system, should determine in its admissibility reports which provisions of the relevant Inter-American instruments are applicable and could be concluded to have been violated if the alleged facts are proven by means of sufficient evidence and legal arguments. 39. In view of the factual and legal arguments made by the parties and the nature of the matter presented for its review, the IACHR believes that the petitioners’ allegations regarding the scope of the alleged responsibility for the facts covered in the complaint could establish possible violations of the rights contained in Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 25 in connection with Article 1.1 of the American Convention, to the detriment of Pedro Julio Movilla Galarcio. In addition, the IACHR believes that the petitioners’ allegations regarding alleged violations of the rights to humane treatment, a fair trial, and judicial protection could establish possible violations of Articles 5, 8, and 25 of the American Convention to the detriment of the relatives of the alleged victim. Furthermore, given the nature of the alleged violations described in this petition – which includes the alleged forced disappearance and the absence of judicial clarification regarding that disappearance – the Commission believes that the merits stage should analyze the possible responsibility of the State for the alleged violation of Article I b) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. 40. Finally, the IACHR believes that the allegations referring to the potential relationship between the alleged disappearance of the alleged victim and the activities he was engaged in as a union activist, as well as the failure to provide judicial clarification regarding those facts, if proven, could constitute a violation of Article 16 of the American Convention. V. CONCLUSIONS 41. The Commission concludes that it is competent to examine the complaints presented by the petitioners regarding the alleged violation of Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 16, and 25 consistent with Article 1.1 of the American Convention, and Article I b) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons; and that they are admissible in accordance with the requirements established in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. 42. Based on the factual and legal arguments set out above, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 5 See IACHR, Report No. 21/04, Petition 12.190, Admissibility, José Luís Tapia González et al., Chile, February 24, 2004, para. 33. 6