5 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 28. 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. 29. The Commission considers that Ms. Tenicela Tello’s alleged forced disappearance and the situation of impunity surrounding the events could constitute violations of the rights of Cory Clodolia Tenicela Tello under Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with the obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of that instrument, as well as her right pursuant to Article I of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. Furthermore, the Commission considers that these events could constitute a violation of the rights of her family under Articles 5, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with the obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of that instrument. 30. In the merits phase the Commission will examine whether the treatment of forced disappearance under the Peruvian law constitutes 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. 31. The Commission stresses that the petitioners have not alleged a violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 3 and 25 of the American Convention and Articles I and III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. These provisions were included in the instant report in application of the principle of iura novit curia. 32. As regards the alleged violation of Article 13 of the American Convention, the petitioners have not presented any specific argument or information that allow the IACHR to evaluate the possible infringement of said provision. This element of the petition is therefore inadmissible under Article 47(b) of said instrument. 33. Finally, inasmuch as the allegations raised in the complaint 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 34. 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 THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS DECIDES: 1. To declare the petition admissible as regards Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with the obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of that instrument; and with Articles I and III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons.