4. Colorable claim 34. For purposes of determining admissibility, 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. The criterion for examining admissibility differs from the one used to examine the merits, as the Commission only performs a prima facie evaluation to determine whether the petitioners establish the apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed in the American Convention. This is a summary analysis that does not entail prejudgment or a preliminary opinion on the merits of the case. 35. Additionally, 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. 36. The petitioner alleged that journalist Santiago Leguizamón, host of the afternoon radio program “Puertas Abiertas” on Radio Mburucuyá and correspondent for the newspaper Noticias, was murdered for reasons connected to his profession on April 26, 1991, in the border city of Pedro Juan Caballero, Paraguay. According to the petition, Leguizamón was murdered by hit men, after receiving prior threats because of his constant criticism of local corruption and his reports on smuggling, drug trafficking, and money laundering on the Paraguay-Brazil border. The petitioner maintained that his investigations and reports “hinted at the alleged complicity between the crime bosses and President Andrés Rodríguez’s administration,” and that there was evidence to indicate that local businessmen and then-President Andrés Rodríguez were the masterminds behind the journalist’s murder. The petitioner maintained that the investigation of these events was not conducted with due diligence, that the relatives of the alleged victim were prevented from taking part in the criminal proceedings for security reasons, and that to this day the crime has been met with total impunity. 37. The State, for its part, indicated that the petitioners have failed to make a colorable claim that the State violated rights enshrined in the American Convention on Human Rights, given that: a) no agent of the State is accused of being involved in the journalist’s death; b) the State did not take actions to impede the journalist’s work, and c) the State has investigated the murder on its own initiative and prosecuted the suspects, within the limits of its jurisdiction. 38. In view of the legal and factual elements presented by the parties and the nature of the matter brought before it, the Commission finds that, if proven, the petitioner’s allegations of State responsibility for the facts set forth in the petition could potentially constitute a violation of the right to a fair trial and the right to judicial protection contained in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, to the detriment of the alleged victim’s relatives. In addition, it follows from the nature of the facts alleged in the petition that they could be violations of Article 5 of the American Convention, with respect to the relatives of the alleged victim. The Commission will examine the potential violation of these provisions in light of the general obligations enshrined in Article 1.1 of the Convention. 39. The Commission is also of the opinion that, if it proves to be true that there is evidence pointing to the participation and responsibility of criminal groups as masterminds of Santiago Leguizamon’s murder in complicity with then-President Andrés Rodríguez, that the murder was not investigated diligently, and that the motive was to silence the journalist’s work, there would be a violation of the right to life and the right to freedom of expression under Articles 4 and 13 of the American Convention, to the detriment of the alleged victim. 40. 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 Article 47.b. of the American Convention with respect to potential violations of Articles 4, 5, 8, 13, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereto, as detailed above. 6