in 2003 and 2006, and given the existence of ongoing investigations, the Commission believes that the petition was presented in a timely fashion and that the admissibility requirement referring to the timeliness of the petition should be taken as having been met. 3. Duplication and international res judicata 52. Article 46(1)(c) states that the admissibility of a petition depends on the matter not being “pending in another international proceeding for settlement,” and Article 47(d) of the Convention rules that the Commission cannot admit a petition that is “substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization.” In this case, neither of those grounds for inadmissibility are indicated by the record. 4. Colorable claim 53. At the admissibility stage, the Commission must decide whether the stated facts could tend to establish a rights violation, as stipulated in Article 47.b of the American Convention, and whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order,” as stated in Article 47(c). The level of conviction regarding those standards is different from that which applies in deciding on the merits of a complaint. The Commission must conduct a prima facie assessment to examine whether the complaint entails an apparent or potential violation of a right protected by the Convention and not to establish the existence of such a violation. That examination is a summary analysis that does not imply prejudging the merits or offering an advance opinion on them. 54. Moreover, neither the American Convention nor the IACHR’s Rules of Procedure require the petitioners to identify the specific rights that they claim were violated by the State in a matter placed before the Commission, although the petitioners may do so. Instead, it falls to the Commission, based on the precedents set by the system, to determine in its admissibility reports what provisions of the relevant inter-American instruments are applicable, the violation of which could be established if the alleged facts are proven by means of adequate evidence. 55. The petitioners contend that the State failed to adopt effective mechanisms to protect the existence of the Tagaeri and Taromenani indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation and their ancestral territory. They claim this can be seen in the specific acts of violence and killings suffered by the peoples at different times, allegedly at the hands of illegal loggers and members of Waorani indigenous communities. They hold that these facts occurred against the backdrop of the invasion of the Tagaeri and Taromenani peoples’ ancestral territory and of the legal and illegal exploitation of its natural resources, with the consent of the State. They claim that during the most recent alleged massacre, two Taromenani girls, aged approximately 2 and 6, were abducted by the Waoranis who participated in the incident, with the State failing to adopt immediate and appropriate protective measures in consideration of their extreme vulnerability as uncontacted indigenous children. 56. In the case at hand, the State claims that analyzing the merits of this petition would require the Commission to act as a court of the fourth instance in that, as it sees, the aim is for the IACHR to rule on the innocence or guilt of the individuals involved in the alleged facts. Similarly, it contends that analysis of the present matter should focus on what was denounced in the initial 2006 petition and not on facts that occurred subsequently. 11