9 examined by this Commission or another international body. Hence, the requirements set forth in Articles 46.1(c) and 47.d of the Convention have been met. 4. Characterization of the alleged facts 36. As the Commission has stated on other occasions, this stage in the proceedings is not for establishing whether or not a violation of the American Convention was committed. In ruling on admissibility, the IACHR must simply decide whether the claim describes incidents that could tend to establish a violation of the American Convention, as required by Article 47.b, and whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order,” as stipulated in Article 47.c. The level of conviction regarding those standards is different from that required in deciding on the merits of a complaint. At this juncture the IACHR must perform a prima facie evaluation, which in no way represents a preliminary judgment or untimely opinion on the merits. Its own Rules of Procedure sets out the distinction that exists between the evaluation performed in order for a petition to be ruled admissible and the one carried out to determine whether the State is or is not responsible, by establishing clearly separate phases for analyzing admissibility and analyzing the merits. 37. In the instant case, the petitioners claim that the alleged victims were dismissed from their positions arbitrarily and in the absence of a fair trial. According to the facts set out by the petitioners, the Commission finds that the petitioners have made allegations that are not “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order” and that, if proven, could tend to establish violations of Articles 13, 15 and16 of the American Convention, respectively, in conjunction with Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof. Also, without prejudging the merits of the matter, the Commission finds that the petitioners' petition contains factual allegations that, if proved, tend to establish violations of the rights guaranteed by Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in conjunction with the State’s obligations under Article 1(1) of the Convention. In the Commission’s view, this includes an issue as to whether the petitioners were afforded an effective possibility to request a revision of their dismissals under Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention. Additionally, through application of the principle of iura novit curiae, the Commission considers the characterization of a possible violation of Article 5 of the Convention. 38. Since the claim is not obviously groundless or out of order, the Commission believes the requirements contained in Articles 47.b and 47.c of the American Convention to have been met with respect to this aspect of the petition. V. CONCLUSIONS 39. The Commission concludes that it is competent to hear the petitioners’ claims regarding the alleged violations of Articles 8, 13, 15, 16 and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof, and that those claims are admissible under the requirements established by Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. 40. Also, the IACHR decides to join the analysis of the requirement of prior exhaustion of internal remedies with the merits, regarding the possible violation of Articles 8 and 25. Additionally, through application of the principle of iura novit curiae, the Commission will analyze during the merits phase the possible violation of Article 5.1 of the Convention. 41. of the case, Based on the foregoing considerations of fact and law, and without prejudging the merits THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS DECIDES: 1. To rule this claim admissible as regards Articles 8, 13, 15, 16 and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1.1 and 2 of the American Convention.