violation of articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture and Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará to the detriment of the alleged victim. The State asserted that the petition does not describe any facts that might tend to establish the violation of any of the rights guaranteed by the Convention, as the participation of State agents has not been demonstrated. 50. As it has been mentioned previously, the claim under review presents a number of alleged violations of the rights of the alleged victim; that reportedly began with threats in 1998 and her kidnapping and sexual assualt on May 25, 2000; the subsequent threats and attacks that cause her to leave the country; the alleged lack of adequate protection with regards to these events, as well as the alleged failure to administer justice that reporteldly extend to the present. According to the petitioner all these events give rise to the State’s international responsibility, either for its actions or its omissions. 51. Therefore, in view of the elements of fact and law submitted by the parties and the nature of the case submitted to its review, the Commission deems that, if proven, the petitioner’s allegations about the scope of the alleged responsibility of the State in the incidents set forth in the petition could tend to establish a violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 13, 17, 22, 24 and 25 of the Convention to the detriment of Jineth Bedoya Lima, in relation to articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture and Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. The Commission shall examine the merits of the possible violation of these provisions in the light of the general obligation enshrined in Article 1(1) of the Convention, as well as the obligation to adopt measures under domestic law in accordance with the provisions of Article 2 of the American Convention. 52. In conclusion, the IACHR decides that the petition is not “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order,” and therefore declares that the petitioner has met prima facie the requirements set forth in Article 47(b) of the American Convention in connection with potential violations of the rights enshrined in articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 13, 17, 22, 24 and 25 of the American Convention, in concordance with articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, with articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, and with Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. V. CONCLUSION 53. The Inter-American Commission concludes that it has jurisdiction to hear the merits of this case and that the petition is admissible under articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. Based on the arguments of fact and law herein set forth, and without prejudging the merits of the issue, DECIDES: THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 1. To declare the present petition admissible as regards the alleged violation of the rights protected by Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 13, 17, 22, 24, and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof; articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture; and Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. and 2. To notify the parties of this ruling, and to continue with the analysis of the merits of the matter; 3. To publish this ruling and include it in its Annual Report to the General Assembly of the OAS.