10 46. The record of the petition does not contain any information that could lead one to determine that this matter is pending another international procedure for settlement or that it has previously been decided by the Commission. Therefore, the IACHR concludes that the potential bars to admissibility provided for at Article 46(1)(c) and Article 47(d) of the American Convention and Article 33 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure do not apply. 4. Characterization of the facts alleged 47. For the purposes of admissibility, the Commission must decide whether the facts alleged tend to establish a violation of rights, as provided for in Article 47(b) of the American Convention and Article 34(a) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, or whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or out of order, as per Article 47(c) of the American Convention and Article 34(b) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. The criterion for evaluating those requirements differs from that used to rule on the merits of a petition; the Commission must make a prima facie evaluation to determine whether the petition establishes the basis of the possible or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the American Convention, but not to establish the existence of a violation of rights. This determination constitutes a preliminary analysis, which does not entail prejudging on the merits of the case.6 48. Neither the American Convention or the IACHR’s Rules of Procedure require the petitioners to identify the specific rights that it is alleged have been violated by the State in the matter submitted to the Commission, although petitioners may do so. By way of contrast, it is up to the Commission, based on the case-law of the system, to determine in its admissibility reports what provision of the relevant inter-American instruments is applicable, and that one could conclude had been violated if the facts alleged are proven by sufficient evidence and legal arguments. 49. Given the factual and legal arguments of the parties, and the nature of the matter before it, with respect to the alleged victims’ next-of-kin, the Commission considers that they tend to establish to establish violations of the rights enshrined in Articles I (right to personal security), and XVIII (right to a fair trial) of the American Declaration, with respect to the alleged failure to investigate prior to April 19, 1985, and of the rights contained in Articles 5, 8, and 25, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention and Articles I, III, IV, V, and XI of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, and Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, with respect to the alleged failure to carry out an effective investigation into the facts alleged, including the alleged acts of torture, the alleged failure to prosecute and punish the persons allegedly responsible, in keeping with a legal framework that has not guaranteed due process, the alleged lack of access to information to determine the truth, as well as the possible violation of the personal integrity of the alleged victims’ next-of-kin stemming from the alleged violations. However, the Commission considers that the petitioners have not presented sufficient evidence to establish the characterization of a possible violation of Article 13 of the American Convention, which corresponds declare this claim inadmissible. 50. As regards the alleged forced disappearance of Luis Eduardo González González and Oscar Tassino Asteazu, the Commission considers that they tend to establish violations of the rights enshrined in Articles I (right to life and personal security), IX (right to inviolability of the home), XVII (right to recognition of juridical personality and civil rights), XVIII (right to a fair trial), and XXV (right to protection from arbitrary arrest) of the American Declaration, respectively, for the period from December 13, 1974 and July 19, 1977 until April 19, 1985, and of the rights contained in Articles 3, 4, 6 para. 37. See IACHR, Report No. 3/11, Petition 491-98, Admissibility, Néstor Rolando López et al. Argentina, January 5, 2011,