whether any response was forthcoming. Hence, the Commission deems that the requirements established in articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention have been met. 4. Colorable claim 43. For purposes of admissibility, the Commission must determine whether the petition describes 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 “obviously out of order," as stated in subparagraph c) of the same article. The standard used to assess these criteria is different from the standard required to decide the merits of a complaint. The Commission must conduct a prima facie evaluation to determine whether the petition reports facts that tend to establish grounds for the apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the American Convention, not to determine whether a violation exists. This examination is a summary analysis that does not imply any prejudgment or suggest any opinion as to the merits. 44. Moreover, neither the American Convention nor the IACHR’s Rules of Procedure require a petitioner to identify the specific rights that the State is alleged to have violated in the matter brought before the Commission, although petitioners may do so. It is for the Commission, based on the system's jurisprudence, to determine in its admissibility report which provisions of the relevant inter-American instruments are applicable and could be found to have been violated if the facts being alleged are proven by sufficient elements. 45. In the present matter, the petitioners are alleging that the Colombian State authorized petroleum, mining and infrastructure activities that could affect the alleged victims, without complying with the obligations incumbent upon it by virtue of the indigenous peoples’ right of collective ownership. They are alleging that despite the fact that the U’wa people availed itself of the domestic judicial system and a process of consultations was conducted, the people’s position on the issue of drilling and other activities on their ancestral territory was not taken into consideration. They contend that the State did not take prompt action to effectively secure the U’wa people’s territory against third party acts and claims, to give the U’wa people title to their ancestral territory and to protect it. They are alleging that against this backdrop, acts of violence occurred for which no one has ever been made to answer. 46. Regarding compliance with this requirement, the State maintained that the claims as represented in the allegations made concerning the lack of an adequate prior consultation process, the existence of irregular licenses and applications for mining in the territory, installation of a gas pipeline that would supposedly compromise the community’s integrity, a failure to comply with its obligations with respect to securing the U’wa reservation against third party acts and claims and expanding it, and the acts of violence said to have gone unpunished, do not tend to establish violations of the American Convention. 47. In this regard, the Commission considers that based on the information available to it, the petitioners’ claims are not “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order”. Therefore, if the assertions made by the petitioners are proven, they could tend to establish violations of articles 24 and 25 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, and Article XIII of the American Declaration. The IACHR also considers that the claimed violations of the right to collective ownership and the right to prior, free and informed consultation could tend to establish additional violations involving articles 8, 13, 21, 23 and 26 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. V. CONCLUSION 48. Based on the arguments of fact and of law and without prejudging the merits of the matter before it, the Inter-American Commission concludes that the present case satisfies the admissibility requirements spelled out in articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention and, therefore, DECIDES: THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 10