complaint. The Commission must perform a prima facie evaluation to examine whether the complaint establishes a basis for an apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention and not to establish the existence of a violation. Such a review is a summary analysis that does not imply any pre-judging or any early formation of an opinion on the merits. 46. Neither the American Convention nor the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR requires that the petitioners identify the specific rights alleged to be violated by the State in the matter submitted to the Commission, although the petitioners may do so. By way of contrast, it is up to the Commission, based on the case-law of the system, to determine in its admissibility reports what provision of the relevant interAmerican instruments applies and whose violation is established if the facts alleged are proven by sufficient elements. 47. In this respect, the Commission observes that in the insant matter the petitioners have alleged a violation of the right to life stemming from the alleged participation of state agents in the death of Mr. Valencia Hinojosa. In addition, they have indicated that a series of irregularities occurred during the investigation and criminal proceeding into that incident, particularly the application of the police jurisdiction, which is said to have had a detrimental impact on the rights to judicial protection and judicial guarantees. 48. If the facts alleged by the petitioners are true, the Commission considers that they could tend to establish a violation of the right to life established in Article 4 of the Convention, to the detriment of Luis Valencia Hinojosa, and of the rights to humane treatment, judicial guarantees, and judicial protection established in Articles 5, 8, and 25 respectively of the American Convention, to the detriment of his family members. In addition, the Commission will analyze the facts alleged in light of the obligation to bring the domestic law into line with the provisions of the Convention, set forth at Article 2. 49. As for the State’s argument regarding “fourth instance,” the Commission notes that it is not for the Commission to rule on the criminal liability domestically of the persons involved, but as to whether the activity of the State in responding to an alleged violation of the right to life is compatible with the obligations imposed by the American Convention regarding investigation and clarification of the facts and, as the case may be, punishment of the persons responsible. In particular, the Commission recalls that in the case of Cabrera and Montiel v. Mexico, the Inter-American Court indicated that in order to consider the applicability of the so-called “fourth instance” argument: … the applicant would need to apply to the Court to review the decision of the domestic court … without, in turn, alleging that such decision was a violation of international treaties over which the Court has jurisdiction.7 50. The Commission considers that this hypothesis is not met in the instance case, since the petitioners do not seek a review of the final judgment, but a determination as to whether the totality of the proceeding that led to that judgment was compatible with the obligation to investigate the death of Mr. Luis Jorge Valencia Hinojosa, and whether Mr. Valencia’s death, as per the rules of international law, may be attributable to the State. In this sense, the Commission notes that the petitioners were consistent in arguing that the criminal proceeding in the police jurisdiction as a whole, including the final decision, constituted a violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection. 51. Finally, the Commission observes that in similar cases related to due diligence in the investigation of deaths in which one of the hypotheses of the investigative authority is suicide, and the petitioners alleged irregularities in the investigation, the European Court of Human Rights has considered admissible and taken cognizance of the petitions on the merits, establishing that there is a positive obligation 7 I/A Court H.R., Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220. Para. 18.