3. Duplication of procedures and international res judicata 65. The petitioners have stated, and the case file shows no evidence to the contrary, that the subject of the petition is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement (Article 46.1.c of the American Convention), nor does it duplicate one previously heard by the Commission or by another international organization (Article 47.d of the Convention). The Commission finds, therefore, that the requirements set forth in both articles of the Convention have been met. 4. Characterization of the facts alleged 66. For purposes of admissibility, the Commission must decide whether the petition describes events that could constitute a violation of rights as stipulated in Article 47.b of the American Convention or, conversely, is "manifestly groundless" or "groundless" according to section (c) of that article. The standard for assessing those factors is different from the one used to rule on the merits of a complaint. The Commission must make a prima facie assessment as to whether the petition provides evidence of the possible or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention; it need not establish that rights were indeed violated. 16 This phase calls for a summary examination that does not constitute a prejudgment or opinion on the merits. The Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission themselves, in establishing an admissibility phase and a merits phase, reflect this distinction between the evaluation to be performed by the Inter-American Commission in order to find a petition admissible and that required to establish whether a violation attributable to the State has been committed17. 67. The Commission finds that the allegations, if proven, could constitute possible violations of the rights of the alleged victims to a private and family life, to raise a family, and to personal integrity, enshrined in Articles 11.2, 17.2, and 5.1 of the American Convention, in respect of Articles 1.1 and 2 of the Convention. It also finds that the effect of the prohibition of a procedure that could have helped the alleged victims in this case to have biological children, as they wished, stemming from the judgment issued by the Constitutional Chamber of Costa Rica on March 15, 2000, could constitute a violation of Article 24 of the American Convention in relation to Articles 1.1 and 2 of that international instrument. 68. The IACHR finds that the information presented does not constitute sufficient evidence of a violation of the rights protected by Articles 4 and 26 of the American Convention. II. CONCLUSIONS 69. The Inter-American Commission concludes that it is competent to examine the merits of this case and that the petition is admissible under Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. It has decided to proceed with the examination of the merits concerning the alleged violation of Articles 5.1, 11.2, 17.2, and 24 of the American Convention, in keeping with the overall obligations to respect and safeguard rights set forth in Articles 1.1 and 2 of the Convention. In addition, although it does not have competence to determine violations of Articles 1, 2, 3, 10, 14.1.b, and 18 of the Protocol of San Salvador, the IACHR will consider the provisions concerning those rights in its examination of the merits in this case, as established in Article 29 of the American Convention. See IACHR, Report No. 128/01, Case 12.367, Mauricio Herrera Ulloa and Fernán Vargas Rohrmoser of the newspaper La Nación (Costa Rica), December 3, 2001, paragraph 50; Report No. 4/04, Petition 12.324, Rubén Luis Godoy (Argentina), February 24, 2004, paragraph 43; Report No. 32/07, Petition 429-05, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia et al. (Chile), April 23, 2007, paragraph 54. 17 See IACHR, Report No. 31/03, Case 12.195, Mario Alberto Jara Oñate et al. (Chile), March 7, 2003, paragraph 41; Report No. 4/04, Petition 12.324, Rubén Luis Godoy (Argentina), February 24, 2004, paragraph 43; Petition 429-05, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia et al. (Chile), April 23, 2007, paragraph 54; Petition 581-05, Víctor Manuel Ancalaf LLaupe (Chile), May 2, 2007, paragraph 46. 16 10