10 protection to the detriment of the relatives of the presumed victim could tend to constitute violations of the rights protected in Articles 5, 8 and 25, in conjunction with Article 1.1 of the American Convention, since allegations regarding an alleged denial of justice require an analysis in the merits stage where irregularities in investigations and criminal proceedings could be established prima facie; also that the judgment dismissing the criminal investigation could be arbitrary in violation of due process. 45. It is also incumbent upon the Commission to establish that the allegations of the petitioners related to the alleged violation of the rights to personal liberty, humane treatment, and life to the detriment of José Delfín Acosta Martínez could tend to constitute violations of the rights protected in Articles 4, 5, and 7, as they relate to Article 1.1 of the American Convention. 46. Furthermore, the Commission considers that a failure to fulfill the obligations set forth in Articles 1.1 and 2 of the American Convention with regard to Article 7 could be characterized since, in accordance with what has been alleged, at the time of the facts the so-called “police ordinances” that justified the detention of the presumed victim were in force; this requires an analysis in the merits stage to establish its compatibility with the State’s duty to adopt the legislative or types of measures necessary to enforce the rights embodied in the aforementioned instrument. 47. Finally, with regard to the alleged violation of the right to equal protection and the alleged failure to prohibit discrimination, the Commission considers that the allegations of the petitioners related to presumed discriminatory acts against José Delfín Acosta Martínez because of his race or national origin could tend to constitute an infringement of the prohibition to discriminate contained in Article 1.1 as relates to the rights contained in Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, and 25 of the American Convention or, in any case, a violation of Article 24 with regard to Article 1.1 of that instrument. Bearing in mind that the allegations that refer to the supposedly discriminatory treatment of the presumed victim by the police, due to reasons of race or national origin, and as race and national origin are categories that require especially rigorous scrutiny, the Commission considers these allegations admissible for the purpose of examining them in the merits stage. V. CONCLUSIONS 48. The Commission concludes that it is competent to examine the claims submitted in the instant case and that the petition is admissible pursuant to Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. Based on the arguments of fact and law set forth herein, and without prejudging the merits of the case, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS DECIDES: 1. To declare this case admissible with regard to the alleged violations of the rights recognized in Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 24, and 25 of the American Convention, considered in conjunction with Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof; 2. To notify the parties of this decision; 3. To continue its examination of the merits of the case; 4. To make this report public and to publish it in its Annual Report to the General Assembly