violation. Such evaluation constitutes a summary review that does not prejudge the merits of the matter discussed. The Commission’s Rules of Procedure, in establishing two clear stages – admissibility and merits, reflects the distinction between the evaluation that the Commission must make in order to declare a petition admissible and that required to establish a violation of human rights. 54. Regarding the alleged violation of the right to freedom of thought and expression, the petitioners indicate that the Argentine courts imposed criminal punishment for the dissemination of statements and reports that might be related to matters of public interest. The Commission notes that, prima facie, the application of criminal law as subsequent imposition of liability for the dissemination of information that might be of public interest tends to constitute a violation of the right to freedom of thought and expression. 55. Analysis of the contents of the remarks made by the alleged victims requires consideration of the merits of the specific case, which will be evaluated at the merits stage, in order to determine whether the application of criminal law and imposition of criminal punishment in this sphere, as well as the civil consequences emanating from the specific case, are incompatible with the provisions of Article 13 of the American Convention. 56. The Commission must also decide at the merits stage whether the criminal procedural path was appropriate and less detrimental to the right of freedom of expression, in accordance with the rights enshrined in the American Convention, to be capable of characterization as subsequent liability legitimately imposed by a State. To that end, it will analyze, in addition to being in the public interest, whether the information disseminated in articles published in the daily “La Libertad” and the remarks made on the “Radio Vall” program, the rights potentially affected by said dissemination, and the proportionality and necessity in a democratic society of utilizing criminal procedure as the most appropriate in the instant case. 57. In addition, the petitioners allege violation of the right to due process, owing to the fact that there were irregularities in the civil action for damages brought against them as well as in the incident of “general inhibition of property” arose from the criminal procedure in which the petitioners were convicted. The petitioners also assert that the judicial authorities did not take account of evidence of the veracity of the statements made in the daily “La Libertad” and in spite of the fact that they had paid in fully the professional fees of the lawyers who represented the plaintiffs, the order of general inhibition of property was not withdrawn. In that connection, the IACHR understands that these allegations if proven, may have constituted a violation of procedural guarantees enshrined in Article 8 of the Convention. 58. Based on the foregoing considerations, the IACHR concludes that the facts denounced tend to establish a violation of the Articles 8 (due process) and Article 13 (rights to freedom of expression) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 of said instrument, and deems fulfilled the requirements set forth in Articles 46, 47(b) and (c) of the American Convention. V. CONCLUSION 59. The IACHR concludes that it is competent to consider this petition and that it meets the admissibility requirements set forth in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention and Articles 30, 37, and related provisions of its Rules of Procedure.