been to this date no investigation, trial or punishment of the perpetrators; and considering the context in which the events took place, the Commission concludes that this petition was filed within a reasonable time. 3. Duplication of procedures and international res iudicata 60. Nothing in the record indicates that the subject of the petition is pending in another international settlement procedure or that it duplicates a petition already examined by this or another international agency. Consequently, the requirements of Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention are met. 4. Characterization of the alleged events 61. It is not appropriate for the Commission at this stage of the procedure to establish whether the alleged violations of the American Convention took place. For admissibility purposes, the IACHR must simply decide whether the alleged events, if proven, could amount to a violation of the American Convention, as prescribed in Article 47(b), and whether the petition is "manifestly groundless" or "obviously out of order," in the words of paragraph (c) thereof. 62. The standard to be used for such findings differs from the standard required to decide the merits. At this stage the Commission must make a summary prima facieassessment and determine whether there are grounds for an apparent or potential violation of a right protected by the Convention, without establishing the existence of that violation. The review that his called for at this point is simply a summary analysis that does not prejudge or advance an opinion on the merits. The Commission's own Rules of Procedure, by establishing two different stages for admissibility and substance, reflect this distinction between assessments made to admit a petition and to establish State responsibility for a violation. 63. Considering the information supplied by the petitioners, as well as the principle iura novit curia that empowers the judge to determine the law applicable to the specific case, the Commission decides, without prejudging the merits, that the alleged events, if proven, could be characterized as violations of the rights to life, humane treatment, personal liberty, a fair trial and judicial protection under Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. In addition, in view of the profile of the alleged victim and the circumstances of his detention and subsequent disappearance, the Commission finds that the reported events could characterize violations of rights protected by Articles 23, 19 and 17 of the American Convention. Furthermore, the Commission finds that those events tend to characterize a violation of the commitments undertaken by the Guatemalan State under Article I of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. Accordingly, the IACHR finds that this requirement has been met. V. CONCLUSIONS 64. The Commission concludes that the case is admissible and that the IACHR has jurisdiction to hear the petitioners' claims of violation of Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 17, 19, 23 and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, as well as Article I of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. 31 65. By virtue of the above facts and law and without prejudging the merits of the matter, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS DECIDES: 1. To find the present case admissible with respect to Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 17, 19, 23 and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, and in relation to 31 See IACHR, Report No. 91/06, Admissibility, Edgar Fernando García, Guatemala, October 21, 2006, para. 34. 10