26. The case records do not show that the subject of the petition is pending other international settlement procedures, or that it replicates a petition already examined by this or another international organization. Therefore, the requirements set forth in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention are considered as having been met. 4. Colorable claim (characterization of the facts alleged) 27. For the purposes of admissibility, the IACHR must decide, pursuant to Article 47(b) of the American Convention, whether the facts alleged, if proven, could characterize a violation of rights, or whether, pursuant to paragraph (c) of the same article, the petition is “manifestly groundless" or "obviously out of order." The criterion for analyzing admissibility differs from that used to analyze the merits of the petition, given that the Commission only conducts a prima facie analysis to determine whether the petitioners establish an apparent or possible violation of a right guaranteed by the American Convention. This is a matter of a cursory analysis that does not amount to prejudging or issuing a preliminary opinion on the merits of the matter. 28. Furthermore, neither the American Convention nor the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR require that the petition identify the specific rights allegedly violated by the State in a matter submitted to the Commission, though the petitioners may do so. It is up to the Commission, based on the case-law of the system, to determine in its admissibility reports which provision of the relevant inter-American instruments is applicable or could be established as having been violated, if the facts alleged are sufficiently proven. 29. The petitioner complains that he has been the victim of a consistent denial of justice given that the acts that caused him permanent physical disability have gone unpunished. The petitioner stresses that the criminal proceedings as a whole have exceeded any reasonable period of time; that the investigation phase lasted more than 11 years; and that he considers it unjustifiable that after all that time domestic courts justify not prosecuting the person responsible for the facts on the grounds that the initial investigations were conducted inappropriately or negligently. The petitioner complains that delaying tactics were used by the judicial authorities and that judges continuously recused themselves. He points out that, just at the first instance level, nine judges were involved. In addition, he alleges that there were acts of corruption and collusion by different judges and justices of the peace in the Judiciary aimed at protecting the person allegedly responsible for what happened. 30. In light of the arguments of fact and law submitted by the petitioner and the nature of the matter before it, the IACHR finds that, if proven, the alleged facts could constitute possible violations of rights protected in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Miguel Ángel Aguirre Magaña. V. CONCLUSIONS 31. Based on the foregoing considerations of fact and law, and without prejudging the merits of the matter, the Commission concludes that the petition meets the requirements for admissibility set forth in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS DECIDES: 1. To declare the instant petition admissible in relation to Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the obligation contained in Article 1.1 thereof; 2. To notify the parties of this decision; 3. To proceed with its examination of the merits of the case; and 5