complaint supports the apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the American Convention, but must not at this point establish the existence of that violation. 15 At this stage it is appropriate to perform a summary analysis that does not involve prejudgment or a preliminary opinion as to the merits. The Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission, by establishing an admissibility phase and a merits phase, reflects this distinction between the evaluation that the Inter-American Commission must perform for purposes of declaring a petition admissible and that needed to establish whether a violation attributable to the State has been committed.16 47. The precedents of the Inter-American Commission clearly establish that it is not competent to review rulings issued by national courts acting within their jurisdiction and applying due judicial guarantees. The IACHR may not act as an appeals court to review alleged errors of law or fact that national courts acting within the limits of their jurisdiction may have made. Nonetheless, within the limits of its mandate to guarantee observance of the rights enshrined in the Convention, the Inter-American Commission is in fact competent to declare a petition admissible and rule on its merits when it relates to a national court decision issued outside the bounds of due process, or if it describes a violation of any other right guaranteed by the American Convention.17 48. The State argues that the petition is inadmissible because it does not contain facts that might represent a violation of rights guaranteed in the American Convention. 49. Specifically with respect to the prosecution of Mr. Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe, the petitioners allege that the principle of proportionality and thus the right to equality and nondiscrimination enshrined in the American Convention in Articles 1 and 24 were violated because the courts handed down a conviction for the alleged terrorism offense without an adequate assessment and discernment regarding the legal nature and actual seriousness of the alleged action, by indiscriminately applying antiterrorist legislation. In the petition it is also alleged that the state is responsible for the violation of the right to freedom from ex post facto laws and of the presumption of innocence enshrined in Articles 8 and 9 of the Convention. 50. Based on the arguments and the documentation provided by the parties, as well as InterAmerican jurisprudence, the Commission feels that a lack of grounds or inadmissibility of the complaint submitted is not in evidence. In addition, the IACHR deems that the allegations of the petitioners concerning the special criminal system applied to the alleged victim and the definition of illegal conduct or criminal definition used rise to a prima facie characterization of a violation of the rights guaranteed in Articles 8 and 9 of the American Convention, as they relate to Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of Víctor Ancalaf Llaupe. In addition, based on the allegations of the petitioners regarding the application to the alleged victim of a more rigorous special criminal system than the ordinary criminal system, based on his ethnic origin, the IACHR feels that the actions denounced could represent a violation of Article 24 of the American Convention, consistent also with Article 1(1) of the same instrument.18 51. Consequently, the Inter-American Commission deems that the requirements established by Article 47(b) and (c) of the American Convention have been satisfied. V CONCLUSION 15 See IACHR, Report N° 128/01, Case No. 12.367, Herrera and Vargas (La Nación), Costa Rica, December 3, 2001, para. 50. See IACHR, Report N° 4/04, Petition 12.324, Rubén Luis Godoy, Argentina, February 24, 2004, para. 43. 16 See IACHR, Report N° 31/03, Case 12.195, Mario Alberto Jara Oñate et al., Chile, March 7, 2003, para. 41. See IACHR, Report N° 4/04, Petition 12.324, Rubén Luis Godoy, Argentina, February 24, 2004, para. 43. 17 See IACHR, Report N° 1/03, Case 12.221, Jorge Omar Gutiérrez, Argentina, February 20, 2003, para. 46, citing Report N° 39/96, Case 11.673, Marzioni, Argentina, October 15, 1996, paras. 50-51. See, IACHR, Report N° 4/04, Petition 12.324, Rubén Luis Godoy, Argentina, February 24, 2004, para. 44. 18 IACHR, Report N° 89/06, Petition 619-03, Admissibility, Aniceto Norin Catriman and Pascual Pichún Paillalao, Chile, October 21, 2006, para. 65. 8