the apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention and not to establish the existence of a violation. Such examination is a summary analysis and does not imply a prejudgment or advance opinion on the merits. 51. Neither the American Convention nor the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR require that the petition identify the specific rights allegedly violated by the State in a matter submitted to the Commission, though the petitioners may do so. It is up to the Commission, based on the case-law of the system, to determine in its admissibility reports which provision of the relevant inter-American instruments is applicable or could be established as having been violated, if the facts alleged are sufficiently proven. 52. In light of the arguments of fact and of law presented by the parties and the nature of the matter before it, the IACHR finds that the petitioners’ submissions regarding the alleged duration of the proceedings; the alleged tampering, removal and/or elimination of key evidence in the file; the alleged use of false and unlawful evidence; the alleged lack of independence and impartiality of the judges in charge of domestic proceedings; the alleged violation of the right to have a duly reasoned judicial decision; as well as the alleged inexistence of a comprehensive review by the Court of Cassation, could tend to establish violations of the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection respectively set forth in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, taken in conjunction with article 1.1 thereof, to the detriment of the relatives of Cristina Britez Arce. In addition, if the allegations regarding the medical treatment afforded in a public hospital which are part of the factual framework of this petition are corroborated, a violation could exist of Article 4 of the Convention, likewise in connection with article 1.1 of that instrument, to the detriment of Cristina Britez Arce. V. CONCLUSIONS 53. Based on the above legal and factual considerations and without prejudging the merits of the matter, the Commission concludes that this case meets the admissibility requirements set forth in articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention and, therefore, DECIDES: THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 1. To declare this petition admissible in relation to articles 4, 8, and 25 of the American Convention taken in conjunction with article 1.1 thereof. 2. To notify the State and the petitioners of this decision. 3. To proceed with its analysis of merits in the matter. 4. To publish this decision and include it in its Annual Report to the OAS General Assembly. Done and signed in the city of Washington, D.C., on the 28th day of the month of July, 2015. (Signed): RoseMarie Belle Antoine, President; James L. Cavallaro, First Vice President; José de Jesús Orozco Henríquez, Second Vice President; Felipe González, Rosa María Ortiz and Tracy Robinson Commissioners. 10