56. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that the requirements established in Article 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention are met. 4. Characterization of the alleged facts 57. With regard to admissibility, the Commission must decide whether the alleged facts would amount to a violation of rights, as laid down in Article 47(b) of the American Convention, or whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order” in accordance with paragraph (c) of the above-mentioned Article. The standard by which to assess these extremes is different from the one used to decide the merits of a petition; the IACHR must perform a summary prima facie evaluation, not to establish the existence of a violation, but to examine if the petition establishes grounds for the apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention. This determination involves a summary analysis which does not imply a prejudgment or advance opinion on the substance of the matter. 58. At the stage on the merits of the instant matter, the Commission will examine the allegations regarding failure to make effective and timely payment of the compensation which the State undertook to provide in accordance with Article 21(2) of the Convention in cases of deprivation of property. Furthermore, with respect to the allegations of lack of protection of the boundaries of the Kuna of Madungandí people’s lands legally recognized by the State, and of the failure to physically demarcate and officially recognize the lands at present inhabited by the Emberá of Bayano people, the Commission finds that they tend to establish a violation of Article 21 of the American Convention. 59. With respect to the alleged ineffectiveness of the State and its legal apparatus in protecting the lands of the petitioners against colonists, the Commission, in keeping with the principle of iura novit curia, finds that they constitute a potential violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. Furthermore, the allegations concerning the ineffectiveness of domestic legal provisions for meeting the needs of the alleged victims as regards their recognition and protection of their lands, would tend to constitute a violation of Article 2 of the American Convention. Furthermore, the Commission also notes that the allegations regarding the alleged victims' lack of access to justice on account of their ethnicity could, if proven, amount to a violation of Article 24 of the American Convention. 60. The IACHR finds that the facts described in the petition do not provide a sufficient basis to characterize a violation of the right to compensation under Article 10 of the American Convention, which recognizes the right of a person to be compensated in accordance with the law in the event they have been sentenced by a final judgment through a miscarriage of justice. Neither does the Commission find that the petition contains sufficient information to characterize a violation of Articles 4, 7, 12, 17, and 19 of the American Convention, nor of Articles I, III, V, VI, VII, XI and XIII of the American Declaration. 61. Based on the foregoing, the Commission will analyze in the merits stage if a possible violation exists of Articles 2, 8, 21, 24, and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the Kuna of Madungandí people and the Emberá of Bayano people. 62. Consequently, the Commission considers that the requirements set forth in Article 47 (c) of the American Convention have been met. V. CONCLUSION 63. The Commission concludes that it is competent to take up the complaint and that the petition is admissible in accordance with Articles 46 and 47 of the Convention for the alleged violation of Article 21 of the American Convention in connection with Article 1(1) thereof. Furthermore, under the principle of iura novit curia, the Commission will analyze in the stage on merits the possible application of Articles 2, 8, 24, and 25 of the Convention. 11