3. Duplication of procedures and international res judicata 42. For a petition to be admitted, Article 46.1.c of the Convention establishes that the matter may not be “pending in another international proceeding for settlement” and Article 47.d of the Convention provides that the Commission shall not admit any petition that is “substantially the same as a petition or communication previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization.” In the case file before us, there is no evidence of any of these circumstances of inadmissibility. 4. Colorable Claim 43. The Commission does not consider it appropriate at this stage of the procedure to determine whether or not the alleged violations occurred to the detriment of the alleged victims. For the purposes of admissibility, the IACHR need only, at this point in time, decide whether the allegations state facts which, should they be proven, would tend to establish violations of the American Convention, as provided in Article 47(b) thereof, and whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order,” in accordance with paragraph (c) of the same Article. The standard for evaluating these requirements is different from the one used to judge the merits of a complaint. The IACHR must undertake a prima facie evaluation to determine whether the complaint demonstrates an apparent or potential violation of a right protected by the American Convention, but not whether such a violation occurred.13 In the current stage, a summary review that does not prejudice or advance an opinion on the substance must be conducted. By establishing both an admissibility stage and a merits stage, the Commission’s own Rules of Procedure reflect this distinction between the evaluation required for the Commission to declare a petition admissible and the one required to establish the existence of a violation attributable to the State.14 44. Moreover, neither the American Convention nor the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights requires petitioners to identify the specific rights allegedly violated by the State in matters submitted to the Commission, even though the petitioners may do so. However, it is the duty of the Commission, in following the system of legal precedents, to determine in its admissibility reports, what provision of relevant Inter-American instruments is applicable and could be concluded to have been violated, should the alleged facts be proven by means of sufficient evidence and legal argument. 45. The petitioner contends that the State is responsible for failure to recognize the right to collective property of the Community of San Juan; as well as for conducting acts that affected their property and possession, as a consequence of sales to private individuals, project concessions and the establishment of a natural protected areas. It also claims that private individuals with interests in the territory leveled threats, harassed and committed acts of violence, particularly targeting community leaders in the absence of any effective response from the State. The Commission finds that, if proven, the facts alleged by the petitioner, could constitute a violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 5, 8, 21 and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1.1 of the same international instrument. The IACHR also finds that the allegations regarding the State’s failure to adopt measures to ensure that community leaders are able to continue to defend the human rights of the Community, if proven, could constitute violations of Article 16 of the American Convention. 46. Additionally, the foregoing allegations pertaining to the extrajudicial execution of Gino Eligio López and Epson Andrés Castillo and the alleged partial impunity could tend to establish a violation of Article 4 of the Convention, in connection with Article 1.1 thereof; and of Articles 5, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1.1 of this instrument, to the detriment of their next-of-kin. 13 See IACHR, Report No. 128/01, Case 12.367, Mauricio Herrera Ulloa and Fernán Vargas Rohrmoser of the Daily Newspaper “La Nación” (Costa Rica), December 3, 2001, par. 50; Report No. 4/04, Petition 12.324, Rubén Luis Godoy (Argentina), February 24, 2004, par. 43; Report No. 32/07, Petition 429-05, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia et al (Chile), April 23, 2007, par. 54. 14 See IACHR, Report No. 31/03, Case 12.195, Mario Alberto Jara Oñate et al (Chile), March 7, 2003, par. 41; Report No. 4/04, Petition 12.324, Rubén Luis Godoy (Argentina), February 24, 2004, par. 43; Petition 429-05, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia et al (Chile), April 23, 2007, par. 54; Petition 581-05, Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Laupe (Chile), May 2, 2007, par. 46.