the American Convention, as stipulated in Article 47(b) of this instrument, and whether the petition is or is not “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order,” as stipulated under Article 47.c. 31. The standard for assessing these requirements differs from the requirements for deciding the merits of a petition. The IACHR must do a prima facie assessment to determine whether the petition states facts that tend to establish a possible violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention, but not to establish the existence of a violation. At this stage, it is a summary analysis and does not imply a prejudgment of the merits or advance any opinion thereon. 5 The present petition describes a possible violation of such basic rights as the right to life, the right to humane treatment, and the right to a fair trial, to the detriment of the alleged victim, committed by private individuals in complicity with or with the acquiescence of the local authorities. Therefore, the Commission must undertake to examine the petition. 32. The Commission does not find that the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order.” It therefore considers that, prima facie, the petitioners have satisfied the requirements established in Article 47.b and c. However, the nature of the described facts lead this body to conclude that the potential violation of Article 5 of the American Convention, is subsumed in this occasion in Article 4 of the same Treaty. Because of that matter, the allegation that the first of these norms was violated has to be declared inadmissible. 33. Based on the information provided by the petitioners, and without prejudging the merits of the case, the IACHR concludes that the petition contains allegations of fact that, if proven, would establish violations of the right to life, right to humane treatment, right to a fair trial and right to judicial guarantees, protected under Articles 4, 8, 25 and 1.1 of the American Convention since, prima facie, the factual description of the situation has credibly established that the case involves a possible violation of the rights under those Convention Articles. Now, it has to be clarified that the potential violation of the rights protected by the alleged norms, are referred to Mr. Manoel Luiz Da Silva in relation to Article 4 of the American Convention, and to his forced heirs in relation to Articles 8 and 25 of the same instrument. 34. The possible violations will be examined in relation to the general obligations undertaken in Articles 1.1 and 2 of the American Convention. 5 IACHR, Report No. 21/04, Petition 12.190, Admissibility, José Luis Tapia González et al., Chile, February 24, 2004, para. 33. 9