previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization as described in Articles 46.1.c and 47.d of the Convention respectively. 4. Characterization of the alleged facts 35. Article 47.b of the Convention states that the Commission consider inadmissible a petition or communication that “does not state facts that tend to establish a violation of the rights guaranteed by this Convention”. The criterion for evaluating these requirements differs from that used to decide on the merits of a petition. In effect, the examination carried out by the Commission is oriented towards determining prima facie whether the petition describes the circumstances of a violation, either possible or potential, of a right protected by the Convention, and not towards proving the effective existence of a violation of rights. In other words, this resolution provides a primary examination which implies no prejudgment of the merits of the case. 36. In accordance with the events described and the judicial remedies pursued in this case and, in particular, taking into account the alleged failure to prevent the loss of life of the alleged victim, which was allegedly motivated by his work as a union leader, and the alleged lack of diligence on the part of the State in investigating effectively the events surrounding the case and punishing those responsible for the crime, the Commission considers that, if these are true, the events which are the subject of the petition could amount to possible violations of rights established in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in agreement with Article 1.1 of the same instrument, for the events subsequent to the ratification of the Treaty by the Brazilian State. Furthermore, the Commission understands that if these were proved, the events which took place before September 25, 1992, could amount to violations of Articles I (Right to life, liberty and personal safety), XVIII (Right to a fair trial), and XXII (Right of association) of the American Declaration. 37. In view of the foregoing, the IACHR concludes that the petition is admissible on this point in accordance with the clauses of Article 47(b). V. CONCLUSIONS 38. The Commission concludes that it has competence to examine the petition and that this complies with the requirements on admissibility, in accordance with Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. Based on the foregoing considerations of fact and law, and without prejudging the merits of the case, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS DECIDES: 1. To declare that the present petition is admissible in relation to the alleged violations of rights protected by Articles I, XVIII, and XXII of the American Declaration, as well as Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention in relation to Article 1.1 of the same instrument. 2. To notify the State and the petitioners of this decision. 3. To begin the process to examine the merits of the matter.. 4. To publish this decision and include it in its Annual Report to the General Assembly of the OAS.