whether the petition reports acts that could potentially constitute violations of rights protected by the American Convention. This analysis does not entail prejudgment, nor does it have a bearing on the merits of the case. 54. According to the analysis of statements by the two parties, the Commission does not find the allegations of the petitioners to be “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order.” If proven to be true, they could constitute violations of rights established in the American Convention, in its Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 25, and 2, which refer to the right to life, right to humane treatment, right to personal liberty, right to a fair trial, right to judicial protection, and the obligation to adopt domestic legislation to give effect to Article 1(1) of this international instrument. 55. Forced disappearance is “an illicit act that generates a multiple and continuous violation of various rights protected by the American Convention and puts the victims in a situation of complete defenselessness, entailing other related crimes. […] In brief, it is a crime against humanity that involves crass abandonment of the essential principles underlying the inter-American system.” 61 In light of the foregoing, without prejudging the merits of the case, the presumed disappearance of Antonio González Méndez, allegedly at the hands of members of the “Justicia y Paz” Organization, would, if the alleged acts are proven, constitute a violation of the right to life, the right to humane treatment, and the right to personal freedom established in Articles 4, 5, and 7 of the American Convention. 56. Similarly, in accordance with the case law of the inter-American system, the alleged forced disappearance of a person entails a violation of the right contained in Article 3 of the American Convention. 62 Based on the principle of iura novit curiae, which establishes the “duty to apply the relevant legal provisions in a case, even when the parties do not expressly evoke them,” 63 the IACHR, without prejudice to the merits of the case, finds the complaint alleging a violation of the right to recognition before the law to be admissible. 57. As for the right to a fair trial and judicial protection contained in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, respectively, the jurisprudence of the organs of the inter-American system has established that whenever a crime prosecutable by law is committed, the State has the obligation to initiate and support the criminal proceeding to its final consequences. 64 58. With regard to the alleged violation of the duty to adopt the domestic legal provisions stipulated in Article 2 of the American Convention, the Commission 61 I/A Court H.R., Case of Goiburú et al. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 82; Case of Gomez Palomino. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 92; Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, Preliminary Objections. Judgment of November 23, 2004. Series C No. 118, paras. 100-106; Case of Molina Theissen,. Reparations (Art. 63.1, American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of July 3, 2004. Series C, No. 108, para. 41; and Case of the 19 Merchants. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 142. 62 I/A Court H.R., Case of Bámaca Velásquez. Judgment of November 25, 2000, Series C No. 70, paras. 180 and 181. Moreover, in its judgment issued in response to a state recognition on January 26, 2000, the Inter-American Court declared that the respondent state had violated Article of the American Convention in the case of the forced disappearance of José Carlos Trujillo Oroza, as follows: [t]he Court considers […] that, as expressly recognized by the State, it incurred international responsibility for violations of rights protected by Articles 3 (right to juridical personality), 4 (right to life), 5.1 and 5.2 (right to humane treatment, (right to personal liberty), 8.1 (right to a fair trial), and 25 (right to judicial protection), considered in light of Article 1.1 (obligation to respect rights), all of which are contained in the Convention, to the detriment of the persons cited in paragraph 1 of the judgment, [...], Inter-American Court, Case of Trujillo Oroza vs. Bolivia, judgment of January 26, 2000, Series C No. 64; para. 41. 63 I/A Court H.R., Case of Hilaire, Constantine y Benjamin, et al. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 107. 64 I/A Court H.R., Case of Baldeón García. Judgment of April 6, 2006, Series C No. 147; Case of the Massacre of Pueblo Bello. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140; Also refer to Report Nº 52/97, Case 11218, Arges Sequeira Mangas, 1997 IACHR Annual Report. 13