33. The Inter-American Commission must decide whether the alleged facts amount to a violation of the rights enshrined in the American Convention pursuant to the requirements of Article 47.b, or whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order,” as described in Article 47.c. At this stage of the proceedings, the Commission must perform a prima facie evaluation, not to establish the alleged violations of the American Convention, but to examine whether the petition alleges acts that could potentially constitute violations of the rights guaranteed in the American Convention. This determination does not entail the prejudgment of the merits of the case. 3 34. Neither the American Convention nor the IACHR’s Rules of Procedure require petitioners to identify the specific rights alleged to have been violated by the State in the matter submitted to the Commission, although they may do so if they wish. It falls to the Commission, on the basis of the system's jurisprudence, to determine in its reports on admissibility which provisions of the pertinent inter-American instruments are applicable, and the violation thereof may be established if the facts alleged are demonstrated with sufficient evidence. 35. The Commission notes that the petition raises questions about the scope and guarantees of the right to reparations regarding human rights violations. The allegations presented are related to the decision adopted on January 21, 2004 in which the Chilean Supreme Court which denied the alleged victims—based on the time-barring of the civil action by the statute of limitations—access to financial reparations to compensate them for the actions taken against them following the coup of September 11, 1973. According to the petitioner, the civil action he filed in 1995 sought to reverse the effects of the decrees issued by the de facto government ordering the dissolution and closure of the petitioner’s radio station La Voz del Sur, as well as the confiscation of the radio station’s assets and facilities. The petitioner alleged that the Court’s decision violated his right of access to effective justice, and “not only deprived him of his right to property” but also prevented his “opinion from once again being communicated” through fair reparations once democracy was restored in his country. 36. In view of the legal and factual elements presented by the parties and the nature of the matter brought before it, the IACHR finds that the petitioner’s assertions regarding the alleged State responsibility for the acts complained of in the petition could potentially describe violations of the rights contained in Articles 8, 13, 21, and 25 of the American Convention on Human rights. The Commission will examine the possible violation of these provisions in light of the general obligations enshrined in Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof. 37. In conclusion, the IACHR finds that this petition is neither “manifestly groundless” nor “obviously out of order,” and therefore declares that the petitioner has met prima facie the requirements established in Articles 47.b. and 47.c of the American Convention with respect to potential violations of Articles 8 (right to a fair trial), 13 (freedom of expression), 21 (right to property) and 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention, in relation to the general obligations enshrined in Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof. V. CONCLUSIONS 38. The Inter-American Commission concludes that it is competent to examine the merits of this case and that the petition is admissible pursuant to Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. Based on the foregoing legal and factual considerations, and without prejudging the merits of the case, DECIDES: THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 39. To find this petition admissible with respect to the rights protected in Articles 8, 13, 21, and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof. 40. case; and 3 To provide notice of this decision to the parties, continue with the analysis of the merits of the IACHR. Report No. 21/04. Petition 12.190. Admissibility. José Luis Tapia González et al. Chile. February 24, 2004, para. 33. 6