for such acts. They also accuse the State of using confessions extracted under torture to condemn the said persons, first to three years imprisonment for carrying illegal firearms, and then to 30 years for homicide. According to the petition, in the first trial, they were denied the right to due process as they were not presumed innocent nor were they given a proper defense. For its part, the Mexican State alleges that the facts do not characterize potential violations of the American Convention, because it considers that Mr. García Cruz and Mr. Sánchez Silvestre were caught in the act, that they had no injuries that might have been inflicted by torture, that their public defense was properly performed, and that the courts acted within the law at all times. 27. It is not appropriate to establish at this stage of the proceedings whether there was indeed a violation of the American Convention. For the purposes of admissibility, the IACHR must determine whether facts constituting a violation have been presented, as stipulated in Article 47(b) of the American Convention. The parameters for judgment on these grounds are different from the requirements for ruling on the merits of a report. The Inter-American Commission must conduct a prima facie evaluation to examine whether the report provides grounds for the apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the American Convention. This is a summary analysis, which does not imply prejudice or advance an opinion on the merits of the case. The distinction between the review to determine admissibility and the review required to determine a violation is reflected in the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR, which clearly establish different stages for admissibility and merits. 28. The petitioners’ allegations refer to facts, which, if true, constitute violations of the rights guaranteed by the American Convention and other international instruments. Despite the fact that the Mexican State alleges that there has been no violation, the information submitted indicates that the investigation into the allegations of torture that took place in 1997 has not been completed. The IACHR believes that the facts presented warrant closer and more comprehensive examination of the petition in the merits stage. 29. IACHR considers that the facts, if proven, constitute violations of the rights of Mr. García Cruz and Mr. Sánchez Silvestre guaranteed in Articles 5, 7, 8 y 25 of the American Convention, as well as in Articles 6, 8 and 10 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. 12 The IACHR therefore considers that the petitioners have proven prima facie the grounds required in Article 47(b) of the American Convention. V. CONCLUSIONS 30. The Inter-American Commission finds that it is competent to hear the merits of this case and that the petition is admissible under Article 46 and 47 of the American Convention. Based on the arguments in fact and in law presented above, and with no pre-judgment on the merits of the case, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, DECIDES: 1. To declare this case admissible with respect to the alleged violations of the rights of Mr. Juan García Cruz and Mr. Santiago Sánchez Silvestre, protected under Articles 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, and under Articles 1, 6, 8 and 10 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture; 2.To notify the parties of this decision; 3.To proceed to review the merits of the case; and 4. To publish this decision and include it in its Annual Report to the General Assembly of the OAS. 12The Mexican State ratified the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture on June 22, 1987, and the Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons on April 9, 2002. 6