61. The standard for the evaluation of these points is different from the one required to decide on the merits of a complaint. The IACHR must carry out a prima facie evaluation to determine whether the complaint provides grounds for the apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention and not to establish the existence of a violation. This examination does not imply prejudgment of the merits of the case. The Commission’s own Rules of Procedure, in establishing two clearly separate stages of admissibility and of merits, reflect this distinction between the evaluation that the Commission must carry out to declare a petition admissible and that which is required to establish the existence of a violation. 62. In the instant case, the State has maintained that the petition is manifestly groundless and therefore should be declared inadmissible. The petitioners, in turn, did not invoke the violation of specific articles of the Convention. Nevertheless, it can be inferred from their claims that the petitioners allege the violation of their rights to life, to humane treatment, to equal protection, and to judicial protection and guarantees. Pursuant to the principle of iura novit curia, which obliges international organizations to apply all legally relevant norms even if they have not been invoked by the parties, the Commission shall examine the facts alleged in the light of the provisions of articles 4, 5, 8, 24 and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with the provisions of article 1(1) of same. 63. The Commission, based on the information and arguments submitted regarding the excessive time lapsed in the criminal investigation process of the facts object of this petition, notes that more than seven years have gone by from the moment the complaint was lodged and the proceedings continue to be in the stage of preliminary investigation, without a final judgment having been rendered. Insofar as the alleged responsibility of the medical personnel that cared for the alleged victim has not been either established or disproved, it is the opinion of the Commission that the allegations of the petitioners tend to establish the violation of article 25 of the Convention, regarding the right to prompt recourse to judicial protection, and to the judicial guarantees provided for by article 8 of the American Convention. 64. Bearing in mind that judicial proceedings have not yet concluded, and that the current examination is of a prima facie character, the Commission reserves its analysis regarding the applicability of article 4 (right to life) for the merits stage. It is also appropriate for the Commission to examine, in the merits stage, the petitioners’ allegations regarding the obligation of the State to remove 16