occurred. The Commission also takes into account in this matter the nature of the allegations and the alleged risks faced by the alleged victim. D. Duplication of proceedings and international res judicata 36. Article 46(1)(c) provides that the admissibility of petitions is subject to the requirement that the subject “is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement,” while Article 47(d) of the Convention stipulates that the Commission shall not admit a petition that “is substantially the same as one previously studied” by the Commission or by another international organization. In the instant case, the parties have not argued the existence of either of those circumstances, nor can they be deduced from the record. E. Colorable claim (characterization of the facts alleged) 37. For purposes of admissibility, the Commission must decide whether the petition states facts that tend to establish a violation, as stipulated in Article 47(b) of the American Convention, whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or whether it is "obviously out of order,” as per Article 47(c). The standard by which to assess these extremes is different from the one needed to decide the merits of a petition. The Commission must perform a prima facie evaluation to examine whether the complaint establishes a basis for an apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention and not to establish the existence of a violation. Such a review is a summary analysis that does not imply any pre-judging or anticipation of an opinion on the merits. 38. Neither the American Convention nor the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR require that the petition identify the specific rights allegedly violated by the State in a matter submitted to the Commission, though the petitioners may do so. It is up to the Commission, based on the case-law of the system, to determine in its admissibility reports which provision of the relevant inter-American instruments is applicable or could be established as having been violated, if the facts alleged are sufficiently proven. 39. The Commission considers that the petitioners' pleadings points to deeds that could constitute violation of the rights to personal integrity, judicial guarantees and judicial protection established in Articles 5.1, 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the obligations established in Article 1.1 of the same instrument. Furthermore, bearing in mind the causal relationship alleged by the petitioners between the acts against Mrs. Villaseñor and the performance of her functions as a judge, the Commission will take into account, in respect of all the violations established, the State's obligations derived from the principle of the independence of the judiciary that prove to be relevant in its analysis of the case. At the same time, the IACHR considers that it lacks sufficient information to establish possible violations of the rights to personal liberty, protection of honor and dignity, and protection of the family, set forth in Articles 7, 11, and 17 of the American Convention. 40. Finally, with respect to the press releases published in 2014 and 2015 that are alleged to have been detrimental to Mrs. Villaseñor's honor and dignity, and the arguments relating to her allegedly improper dismissal from her position as Supervisor General of Courts, the Commission does not discern, on the basis of the information submitted, factors that would enable it to relate such recent events with the core subject matter of the instant case. V. PROVEN FACTS A. Background on the situation of justice system operators in Guatemala 41. The Inter-American Commission pronounced on the lack of security for judges in Guatemala during the 1990s. In its 1993 report on the human rights situation in Guatemala, it pointed out that judges 6