33. As indicated in paragraph 31 above, the Commission concluded that in this case an unjustified delay in the decision has taken place, in keeping with Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention. Considering the continuing nature of the alleged forced disappearance of Mr. Jeremías Osorio Rivera, the lack of clarification as to his whereabouts, the lack of determination of responsibility, and the alleged denial of justice under the proceeding that was dismissed, and in the proceeding still in progress, the Commission finds that the petition was presented within a reasonable time. D. Duplication of proceedings and international res judicata 34. Article 46(1)(c) of the Convention provides that the admission of a petition is subject to the requirements that the matter "is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement"; and Article 47(d) of the Convention stipulates that the Commission will not admit a petition that is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization. In this case, the parties have not cited the existence of either of those two circumstances, nor are they inferred from the case file. E. Characterization of the facts alleged 35. For purposes of admissibility, the Commission must decide whether the petition describes events that could constitute a violation, as stipulated in Article 47(b) of the American Convention; and whether the petition is "manifestly groundless" or "out of order" according to section (c) of that Article. The standard for assessing those requirements is different from the one used to rule on the merits of a petition. The Commission must make a prima facie assessment as to whether the petition includes the basis for the possible or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention, and not to establish the actual existence of a violation. This determination constitutes a summary examination that does not prejudge or rule upon the merits of the matter. 36. The Commission finds that the context in which Mr. Jeremías Osorio Rivera was allegedly captured by members of the Army, the alleged mistreatment and assaults to which he was subjected, his alleged forced disappearance, the knowledge of the complaints to that effect by military justice authorities for several years, and the alleged situation of impunity surrounding these events could constitute violations of the rights enshrined in Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations established in Article 1.1 of that instrument and, in virtue of the principle iura novit curia, of the rights established in Article I of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, to the detriment of Jeremías Osorio Rivera. Also, the Commission finds that these actions could constitute violations of the rights enshrined in Articles 5, 8, and 25 of the American Convention in relation to the obligations established in Article 1.1 of that instrument, to the detriment of the relatives of Jeremías Osorio Rivera. 37. In the merits phase the Commission will examine whether the treatment of forced disappearance under domestic law and the alleged negative effects of the amnesty laws on the investigation of the facts constitute noncompliance with the obligation to take measures under domestic law, set forth in Articles 2 of the American Convention and III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. 38. Finally, inasmuch as these aspects of the petition do not appear to be obviously out of order or manifestly groundless, the Commission concludes that the petition satisfies the requirements set forth in articles 47(b) and (c) of the American Convention. V. CONCLUSIONS 39. On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and of law, and without prejudging the merits of the matter, the Inter-American Commission concludes that this case meets the admissibility requirements set forth in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention; therefore 6