9 Consequently, those elements of the complaint also satisfy the requirement set by Article 32 of the IACHR’s Rules of Procedure. D. Duplication of proceedings 53. The case file does not indicate that the substance of the petition is pending in any other international settlement proceeding or that it has already been ruled on by the Inter-American Commission. Consequently, the Commission finds that the requirements set in Articles 46.1.c and 47.d of the Convention have been met. E. Characterization of the alleged facts 54. At the admissibility stage, the Commission must decide whether the stated facts could tend to establish a rights 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 Article 47.c. The level of conviction regarding those standards is different from that which applies in deciding on the merits of a complaint. The Commission must conduct a prima facie assessment to examine whether the complaint entails an apparent or potential violation of a right protected by the Convention and not to establish the existence of such a violation. 55. In consideration of the parties’ contentions, the IACHR believes that there may have been a violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 5, 7, 8, and 25 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof, of Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the IACPPT, and of Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, all with respect to Gladys Carol Espinoza. Under the principle of iura novit curia, the IACHR further believes that the alleged rape of Gladys Carol Espinoza could also constitute a violation of the right protected by Article 11 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof. Similarly, the alleged torture, incommunicado detention, and visiting restrictions suffered by the alleged victim could entail a violation of the right enshrined in Article 5.1 with respect to her family. 56. The Commission notes that the State has presented claims regarding the criminal proceedings brought against Gladys Carol Espinoza and has argued that any irregularities committed by the military courts were rectified by the new terrorism laws enacted between January and February 2003. In turn, the petitioners’ contentions regarding Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention address the failure to investigate the alleged acts of violence suffered by Ms. Espinoza Gonzales. In light of the absence of any specific claims from the petitioners regarding the criminal proceedings brought against her, the IACHR shall refrain from ruling on any possible violation of the Convention arising therefrom. Accordingly, the IACHR notes that the case at hand addresses the alleged illegal and arbitrary arrest of Gladys Carol Espinoza, the alleged torture and inhuman detention conditions she suffered, and the alleged failure to conduct investigations into those matters. 57. Finally, in that the petition is not obviously groundless or out of order, the Commission concludes that it satisfies the requirement set in Articles 47.b and 47.c of the American Convention. V. ANALYSIS OF FACTS A. Appraisal of the evidence 11 58. In accordance with Article 43.1 of its Rules of Procedure, the Commission will examine the facts alleged by the parties and the evidence submitted during the processing of the case at hand. In 11 Article 43.1 of the IACHR’s Rules of Procedure provides as follows: The Commission shall deliberate on the merits of the case, to which end it shall prepare a report in which it will examine the arguments, the evidence presented by the parties, and the information obtained during hearings and on-site observations. In addition, the Commission may take into account other information that is a matter of public knowledge.