IV. V. ANALYSIS ON COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY CONCLUSIONS 49. The Commission concludes that it is competent to examine the claims presented by the petitioner regarding the alleged violation of Articles 7, 8, 9, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof, in accordance with the requirements established by Articles 46 and 47 of that same instrument. 50. The Commission also decides to declare this petition inadmissible as regards Articles 10, 11, 21, and 24 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Articles I, II, XVIII, XXV, and XXVI of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. 51. Based on the foregoing considerations of fact and law, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS DECIDES: 1. To rule this petition admissible as regards Articles 7, 8, 9, and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof, with respect to Messrs. Jorge Villarroel Merino, Mario Rommel Cevallos Moreno, Jorge Coloma Gaybor, Fernando López Ortiz, Amílcar Ascazubi Albán, and Patricio Vinuesa Pánchez. 2. To rule this petition inadmissible as regards Articles 10, 11, 21, and 24 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Articles I, II, XVIII, XXV, and XXVI of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. 3. To give notice of this decision to the Ecuadorian State and to the petitioner. 4. To continue with its analysis of the merits of the complaint. 5. To publish this decision and to include it in its Annual Report to the OAS General Assembly. Done and signed in the city of Washington, D.C., on the 29th day of the month of January, 2015. (Signed): Tracy Robinson, President; Felipe Gonzalez, Second Vice President; José de Jesús Orozco Henríquez, Rosa María Ortiz, Paulo Vannuchi and James L. Cavallaro, Commissioners. 6