organization. Hence, the requirements set forth in Articles 46.1.c and 47.d of the American Convention, as well as in Article 33.1 of the IACHR’s Rules of Procedure, have been met. E. Colorable claim 40. Article 47.b and 47.c of the American Convention and Article 34 of the Rules of Procedure require the IACHR to consider a petition to be inadmissible if the petition does not state facts that tend to establish a violation of the rights guaranteed by the American Convention or other applicable instruments, or if the statements of the petitioner or of the State indicate that the petition is manifestly groundless or obviously out of order. In doing so, the Inter-American Commission undertakes only a prima facie evaluation of the alleged facts with respect to admissibility and does not consider or judge the merits of the claim. 41. In this regard, the IACHR notes that the petition primarily contains allegations concerning the alleged victims’ right to life; to humane treatment and the conditions of their pre and posttrial detention; to equality before the law with respect to their indigence and access to remedies; to a fair trial; and the right to due process of law and compensation for miscarriage of justice. Based upon the information provided by the petitioners, and without prejudging the merits of the matter, the Inter-American Commission finds that, if proved, these allegations tend to establish possible violations of the rights guaranteed by Articles I, II, XVIII, XXV and XXVI of the American Declaration and/or Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 24 and 25 of the American Convention, taking into account the considerations set forth in paragraph 32 (supra). 18 42. Concerning the alleged refusal by the State to allow Mr. Dial to see his child and the resulting impact on his right to protection of family and the rights of the child, the IACHR considers that, if proved, these allegations may tend to disclose a breach of Articles 17 and 19 of the American Convention; as well as, by virtue of the general principle of iura novit curia, a potential violation of Articles VI and VII of the American Declaration, in line with the considerations set forth in paragraph 32 (supra). Furthermore, while not alleged by the petitioners, the Inter-American Commission finds, also by virtue of the general principle of iura novit curia,19 that the circumstances alleged may also disclose an infringement of the State’s obligations under Articles 1.1 and 2 of the American Convention, concerning the general obligation to respect rights and the obligation to adopt legislative or other measures to give effect to those rights. 43. On the other hand, the IACHR observes that the petitioners have not presented sufficient elements that would allow the Inter-American Commission to determine, for the effects of the admissibility of this petition, that the facts tend prima facie to establish violations of Article 11 of the American Convention. With respect to this provision, the IACHR considers that this petition is inadmissible, in conformity with Articles 34.a and 34.b of the Inter-American Commission’s Rules of Procedure. V. CONCLUSION 44. The IACHR concludes that it is competent to hear this case and that the petition is admissible according to Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention and Article 34 of its Rules of Procedure, with the exception of the allegations regarding Article 11 of the American Convention. Based on the findings of fact and law set forth above, and without prejudging the merits of the matter, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, DECIDES: 18 See mutatis mutandi IACHR. Report N. 137/09, Admissibility, Reshi Bisoon and Foster Serrete, Trinidad and Tobago, November 13, 2009, paras. 49 and 50. 19 See e.g. I/A Court H.R., Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago Case. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 107. 8