For the purposes of admissibility, the IACHR at this time must only decide, pursuant to Article 47(b) of the American Convention, whether facts have been put forward that, should they be proven, would constitute violations of same, and, pursuant to paragraph c of the same article, whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order.” 52. The standard by which to assess these extremes is different from the one needed to decide the merits of a petition. The IACHR must perform a summary prima facieevaluation and determine if the complaint provides grounds for an apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the American Convention, although not whether the violation has in fact occurred.23 At the present stage what is appropriate is to make a concise analysis that does not entail a prejudgment or the advance of an opinion on the merits. The Inter-American Commission’s Rules of Procedure, in establishing one stage for admissibility and another one for merits, reflects this distinction between the evaluation that the Inter-American Commission must carry out to declare a petition admissible, and the one required to establish whether a violation imputable to the State has been committed.24 53. The Commission finds that there is nothing in this case to suggest that the petition is unfounded or out of order. Furthermore, it notes that, prima facie, the petition tends to characterize violations of the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection enshrined at Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in view of the petitioners allegations regarding the alleged defenselessness of José Agapito Ruano Torres because of the reportedly negligent conduct of the public defenders, in addition to the claims concerning the lack of an adequate response from the courts of justice to reiterated requests from the alleged victim for procedures designed to resolve the error of identity that he averred and the alleged deficiencies in the identification procedures, among others issues. 54. The Commission also notes that the complaints of torture allegedly committed at the time of the alleged victim’s arrest and the allegations of illegal detention were examined in the framework of proceedings in which the alleged victim was reportedly defenseless and irregularities were supposedly committed. Accordingly, if shown to be true, the allegations of torture and illegal detention could constitute an alleged violation of Articles 5 and 7 of the Convention. 55. Based on the foregoing, the Commission will analyze in the stage on merits if a possible violation exists of Articles 5, 7, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of José Agapito Ruano Torres. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the requirements set forth in Article 47(c) of the American Convention have been met. V. CONCLUSIONS 56. The Commission concludes that this petition is admissible and, therefore, it is competent to take up the complaint lodged by the petitioner with regard to alleged violation of Articles 5, 7, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the said instrument. 57. Based on the factual and legal arguments given above and without prejudging the merits of the matter, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, DECIDES: 23 See IACHR, Report 128/01, Case 12.367, Herrera and Vargas (La Nación), Costa Rica, December 3, 2001, para. 50; Report 4/04, Petition 12.324, Rubén Luis Godoy, Argentina, February 24, 2004, para. 43; Report 32/07, Petition 42905, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia et al., Chile, April 23 2007, para. 54 24 See IACHR, Report 31/03, Case 12.195, Mario Alberto Jara Oñate et al., Chile, March 7, 2003, para. 41; Report 4/04, Petition 12.324, Rubén Luis Godoy, Argentina, February 24, 2004, para. 43; Petition 429-05, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia et al., Chile, April 23, 2007, para. 54; Petition 581-05, Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe, Chile, May 2, 2007, para. 46. 10