protected by the Convention4. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the allegations of the petitioner could tend to establish in the merits phase violations of the rights protected by Articles 8 (right to a fair trial), 9 (freedom from ex post facto laws) and 25 (right to judicial protection) of the American Convention. 35. In addition, the Commission will examine in the merits whether the Peruvian legal framework regulating the guarantees for removal of provisional prosecutors5 is in keeping with the American Convention, which could tend to establish a violation of the right protected in Article 2 of the American Convention. 36. Furthermore, the Commission concludes that it has insufficient evidence to allow it to infer alleged violations on the part of the Peruvian State regarding the other rights invoked by the petitioner, contained in Articles 11 (right to privacy) and 24 (right to equal protection), and therefore has decided to declare them inadmissible. Finally, given the allegations of the petitioner, it must be noted that Article 29 of the Convention shall be used in this as in other matters, as the guide for interpreting the State’s conventional obligations. V. CONCLUSIONES 37. The Commission concludes that it is competent to review the claims submitted by the petitioner regarding alleged violation of Articles 8 (right to a fair trial), 9 (freedom from ex post facto laws), and 25 (right to judicial protection) in keeping with Articles 1.1 (obligation to respect rights) and 2 (domestic legal effects) of the convention and that these are admissible, pursuant to the requirements set forth in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. The Commission further concludes that it does not have sufficient evidence to rule on the claim of the alleged violation of Articles 11 (right to privacy) and 24 (right to equal protection) of the American Convention. 38. Based on the foregoing arguments of fact and law and without prejudice to the merits of the matter, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS DECIDES: 1. To find the instant case admissible pursuant to Articles 8 (right to a fair trial), 9 (freedom from ex post facto laws) and 25 (right to judicial protection) in relation to Articles 1.1 (obligation to respect rights) and 2 (domestic legal effects) of the American Convention. 2. To notify the Peruvian State and the petitioner of this decision. 3. To continue analyzing the merits of the matter. 4. To publish this decision and include it in its Annual Report to the OAS General Assembly. Approved by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in the city of Mexico, on August 15, 2014. (Signed): Tracy Robinson, President; Rose-Marie Belle Antoine, First Vice President; Felipe González, Second Vice President; José de Jesús Orozco Henríquez, Rosa María Ortiz, Paulo Vannuchi, and James L. Cavallaro, Commissioners. 4 The Inter-American Court has established that “decisions adopted by domestic bodies that could affect human rights should be properly grounded; otherwise they would be arbitrary decisions. In this sense, the argumentation of a ruling and of certain administrative actions should allow one to know what the facts, reasons and regulations are on which it bases the decision-making authority, to therefore rule out any hint of arbitrariness. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2011. Series C No. 233, para. 141. 5 See IACHR, Report N° 62/12, Petition 1471-05, Admissibility, Yenina Esther Martínez Esquivia, Colombia, March 20, 2012, which concerns about the removal from office of a temporary prosecutor allegedly without any cause or due process.