in the respective cases, which implies that since the incidents occurred the petitioners have expected to obtain justice and reparations for these incidents. The Commission considers that the foregoing elements are sufficient to conclude that the petition was submitted within a reasonable period of time. 4. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 59. Article 46.1.c of the Convention provides that for a petition to be admissible, “the subject of the petition or communication is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement.” Article 47.d of the Convention provides that the Commission will not admit a petition that is “substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization.” Neither party in this case has suggested that any of the two grounds for inadmissibility is present in this case, nor can that be inferred from the case. 5. Nature of the alleged violations 60. At the admissibility stage, the Commission must decide whether the presented facts could tend to establish a human rights violation, as stipulated in Article 47.b of the American Convention, and whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or is “obviously out of order,” as stated in section (c) of that same Article. The standard by which to assess those issues is different from the one needed to decide the merits of a petition. The Commission must conduct a prima facie evaluation, not to establish the existence of a violation but rather to examine whether the petition states facts that tend to establish a potential or apparent violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention. That examination is a summary analysis that does not imply any prejudgment or advance opinion on the merits. 12 61. The Commission considers that, if true, the facts related to the death of Néstor José Uzcátegui could tend to establish a violation, to his detriment, of the rights enshrined in Articles 4 and 5 of the American Convention with respect to the obligations established in Article 1.1 of the same Convention. Moreover, the IACHR deems that the circumstances in which said death would have occurred, as well as the supposed lack of investigation and punishment of the responsible parties could tend to establish a violation to the rights enshrined in Articles 5, 8, and 25 of the American Convention with respect to the obligations established in Article 1.1 of the Convention, to the detriment of the relatives of Néstor José Uzcátegui. 62. The Commission also considers that the alleged physical aggression and the supposedly illegal and arbitrary detentions to the detriment of Luís Uzcátegui and Carlos Eduardo Uzcátegui, the alleged death threats to the detriment of Luís Uzcátegui, and the alleged lack of investigation of these incidents, could tend to establish a violation to the rights enshrined in Articles 5, 7, 8, and 25 of the American Convention with respect to the obligations established in Article 1.1 of the Convention. 63. Finally, and even though it was not alleged by the petitioners, based on the principle iura novit curia, the IACHR deems that the facts related to the supposed illegal searches; the beatings, maltreatment, and supposedly illegal and arbitrary detention of Carlos Eduardo Uzcátegui, being a minor; and the criminal proceedings against Luís Uzcátegui for the crime of aggravated defamation, allegedly as a result of the public denunciation he made on the existence of the para-police groups in Falcón State, could constitute a violation to the rights enshrined in Articles 11, 13, and 19 of the American Convention, with respect to the obligations established in Articles 1.1 and 2 of the Convention. V. CONCLUSIONS 64. Based on the factual and legal considerations presented, and without prejudging as to the merits of the case, the Inter-American Commission concludes that this case satisfies the admissibility requirements enshrined in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. 12 IACHR, Report No. 21/04, José Luís Tapia González, et al., Petition 435-2005, Admissibility, Chile, February 24, 2004, para. 33. 12