proceeding, the level of conviction regarding those standards is different from that which applies in deciding on the merits of a complaint. The Commission must conduct a prima facie assessment to examine whether the complaint entails an apparent or potential violation of a right protected by the Convention and not to establish the existence of such a violation. That examination is a summary analysis that does not imply prejudging the merits or offering an advance opinion on them. 39. Neither the American Convention nor the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR require the petitioner to specify the rights allegedly violated by the State in the matter submitted to the Commission, although petitioners may do so. It is up to the Commission, based on the system’s jurisprudence, to identify in its admissibility reports which provisions of the relevant inter-American instruments are applicable and would be violated if the alleged facts are sufficiently proved. 40. The petitioner alleges that the Mexican State violated the right to personal liberty of the three alleged victims by arresting them without informing them of the charges, and detaining them (under arraigo) for 90 days. The petitioner also alleges that the alleged victims were not brought promptly before a judge, and were not informed of the reasons for their arrest or the charges against them. Furthermore, the petitioner says that the alleged victims’ presumption of innocence was not respected, and their attorney was not allowed to have access to the actions of the preliminary investigation, in violation of their right to a fair trial. According to the petitioner, the State also violated their right to judicial protection by not affording them a simple recourse against the acts that violated their fundamental rights by their detention, arraigo, and criminal proceeding. The petitioner argues that the State did not respect the alleged victims’ right of assembly, because the participation of three persons is one of the elements that constitutes a violation of the Federal Law against Organized Crime. Mexico, for its part, holds that the matter is without an issue because of the release of the alleged victims. 41. Considering the elements of fact and law presented by the parties, and the nature of the matter brought before it, the IACHR considers that, if proven, the alleged facts tend to establish violations of the rights protected in Articles 5 (humane treatment), 7 (right to personal liberty), 8 (right to a fair trial), and 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention, in connection with Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same international instrument. 42. With respect to the petitioner’s complaint of the alleged violation of Article 15 (right of assembly) of the American Convention, the Commission notes that the petitioner does not offer allegations or evidence to support that alleged violation, so it is not possible for the Commission to declare the petition admissible with respect to that Article. V. CONCLUSIONS 43. Based on the foregoing arguments of fact and law, and without prejudging the merits of the case, the Inter-American Commission concludes that the present case satisfies the requirements for admissibility established in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, and therefore, DECIDES: THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 1. To declare the petition under study admissible with respect to Articles 5, 7, 8, and 25 of the American Convention in connection with the obligations established in Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument. 2. Convention. 3. To declare the present petition inadmissible with respect to Article 15 of the American To notify the parties of this decision;