purposes of admissibility, the IACHHR must merely decide if the allegations describe events that could be characterized as a violation of the American Convention, according to the terms of its Article 47.b, and if the petition is manifestly groundless or obviously out of order. pursuant to paragraph (c) of that Article. The standard for evaluation of these facts is different from the one required to decide on the merits of the petition. In the present stage, the IACHR must conduct a preliminary prima facie evaluation that does not entail a prior judgment or advance opinion as to the merits. Its own Rules of Procedure reflect this distinction between the evaluation that must be conducted to declare a petition admissible, and the one required to determine the actual responsibility of the State, by establishing clearly differentiated stages for study of admissibility and merits. 50. In the present case, the petitioners allege violation by the State of the rights to life, humane treatment, personal liberty, a fair trial, equality before the law, and judicial protection, established in Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 24 y 25 of the American Convention, respectively, considered together with the obligation to respect these rights and the duty to adopt domestic legislation, established in Article 1.1 of that instrument. 51. Having reviewed the information submitted by the parties, the Commission finds that the petitioners have made allegations that are not manifestly groundless or obviously out of order, and that, if proven to be true, could represent violations of Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 24, and 25 of the American Convention, respectively, considered in relation to Article 1.1 of that international instrument. 52. More specifically, the Commission deems it appropriate to state that the facts described in this petition are fundamentally related to the assumed international responsibility of the Dominican Republic stemming from the action of State agents that resulted in the alleged arbitrary deprivation of life of Jacqueline Maxime, Fritz Alce (Gemilord), Roselene Theremeus, Ilfaudia Dorzema, Mimo Rub de Jes Espinal, Pardis Fortilus, and Nadege Dorzema, the presumed failure to ensure the humane treatment of Joseph Pierre, Selafoi Pierre, Silvie Thermeus, Roland Israel, Rose Marie Dol, Josu Maxime, Michel Florantin, Celicia Petithomme/Estilien, Sonide Nora, Alphonse Oremis, Renaud Timat, and Honorio Winique, the presumed deprivation of the freedom and presumably arbitrary deportation of some of the alleged victims, and the failure to ensure a fair trial and judicial protection that would have provided for reparations for damages incurred. 53. In addition, based on the information provided by the petitioners and on the principle of iura novit curia, that grants the power to determine the law applicable to the specific case, the Commission decides, without prejudice to the merits, that the events described, if proven, could also characterize a violation of Article 2 of the American Convention, as regards the duty of states to adopt legislative provisions to give effect to the rights and freedoms established therein, and especially in relation to national criminal legislation and regulation of the jurisdiction of military and regular courts. 54. Since the lack of foundation or groundlessness for these aspects of the complaint are not evident, the Commission considers that the requirements established in Article 47.b and 47.c of the American Convention have been met with regard to this aspect of the complaint. V. CONCLUSION 55. The Commission concludes that without prejudice to the merits of the case, and after analyzing the available information and verifying compliance with the admissibility requirements established in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, as well as in Articles 30 and 37 of its Rules of Procedure, the petition is admissible with regard to the alleged violation of the rights established in Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 24, and 25 of the American Convention, considered in relation to the general obligation established in Article 1.1 of that international instrument. Moreover, in application of the principle of iura novit curia, the Commission will, in the merits stage, examine whether there is a possible violation of Article 2 of the American Convention. 9