3. Duplication of procedures and international res judicata 21. It does not appear from the record that the subject matter of the petition is pending before any other procedure for international settlement, nor that it reproduces a petition already examined by this or any other international organization. Therefore, the requirements established at Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention have been satisfied. 4. Colorable claim 22. For purposes of admissibility, the Commission must decide whether the facts alleged tend to establish a violation of rights, as stipulated in Article 47(b) of the American Convention, or whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order,” as per Article 47(c). The criterion for analyzing admissibility is different from that used to analyze the petition, given that the Commission performs a prima facie analysis to determine whether the petitioners establish an apparent or possible violation of a right guaranteed by the American Convention. It is a summary analysis that does not entail prejudging or issuing a preliminary opinion on the merits. 23. Moreover, neither the American Convention nor the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR require petitioners to identify the specific rights alleged to have been violated by the State in the matter submitted to the Commission, though petitioners may do so. 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 inter-American instruments is applicable and whose violation could be established if the facts alleged are proven by sufficient evidence. 24. The petitioner argues that she was arbitrarily removed from her job as a judicial clerk, as her removal proceeding unfolded in breach of judicial guarantees. She also indicates that the courts that heard her claims failed to give her effective judicial protection. At the same time, the State says that she always had access to adequate and effective judicial remedies, and that if her claims were not granted that does not make for a per se violation of the American Convention. 25. In view of the elements of fact and law presented by the parties and the nature of the matter put before it, the IACHR considers that if it is proven that in the context of the removal of the petitioner the judicial courts did not observe the required guarantees and that, for example, according to the petition judgments were issued without having reviewed the record of ratifications and failing to abide by a ruling that ordered that the due process violations be corrected, which could tend to establish possible violations of the rights protected in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in keeping with Article 1(1) of the same Convention. 26. As regards petitioner’s claim alleging violation of Articles 5 and 11 of the American Convention, the Commission observes that the petitioner does not offer arguments or support for their alleged violation, thus that claim is not found admissible. V. CONCLUSIONS 27. Based on the foregoing considerations of fact and law, the Inter-American Commission concludes that this petition meets the admissibility requirements set forth at Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, and, without prejudging on the merits, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS DECIDES: 1. To find the instant petition admissible in relation to Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention in connection with the obligation established at Article 1(1) of the same instrument. 4