alleged violation of its duty to adopt provisions of domestic law, established at Article 2 of the American Convention, in connection with the right to the presumption of innocence established at Article 8(2) of the American Convention. This is insofar as the decisions that denied the review of the deprivation of liberty, provided for at Article 264 of the COPP, were based on the presumption of flight established in Article 251 of the COPP, which holds that one presumes danger of flight “in cases punishable by prison sentences whose maximum term is at least 10 years.” In view of the foregoing, the Commission finds that in the instant case the petitioner’s allegations with regard to the presumption of flight could characterize a violation of the duty established in Article 2 in connection with Article 8(2) of the American Convention. 58.With respect to the arguments on the alleged violation of the rights to life, assembly, privacy, and equal protection, protected at Articles 4, 11, 15, and 24 of the American Convention, the petitioner’s arguments have not been duly substantiated in the petition, thus those claims cannot be found admissible. V. CONCLUSIONS 59. The Commission concludes that it is competent to examine the claims presented by the petitioner regarding the alleged violation of Articles 5, 7, 8, and 25, in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention, and that they are admissible as per the requirements established at Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. 60. Based on the foregoing arguments of fact and law, and without this constituting any preliminary judgment on the merits, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS DECIDES: 1. To declare the petition under study admissible in relation to Articles 5, 7, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument. 2. To declare the petition inadmissible in relation to the arguments concerning the alleged violations of Articles 4, 11, 15, and 24 of the Convention. 3. To give notice of this decision to the Venezuelan State and the petitioner. 4. To begin to examine the case on the merits. 5. To publish this decision and include it in the Annual Report to be submitted to the OAS General Assembly. Done and signed in the city of Washington, D.C., on March 20, 2009. (Signed): Víctor E. Abramovich, First Vice-president; Felipe González, Second Vice-president; Sir Clare K. Roberts, Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, Florentín Meléndez, and Paolo G. Carozza, members of the Commission. 15