E. Characterization of the alleged facts 88. For purposes of admissibility, the Commission must determine whether the petition sets out facts that tend to establish a violation, as stipulated in Article 47 (b) of the American Convention, whether the petition is "manifestly groundless", or whether it is "obviously out of order", pursuant to Article 47(c).The standard for evaluating those requirements differs from that required to rule on the merits of a petition. The Commission must perform a prima facie examination to determine whether the petition establishes the bases for a possible or potential violation of a right guaranteed under the Convention, and not to determine the existence of a violation. Such an examination is a preliminary analysis that does not imply a pre-judgment on the merits. 89. The petitioners allege that the State violated the judicial guarantees established in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, and in Article 8 (2) (h) in particular, because of the alleged lack of an ordinary procedure for the comprehensive examination of the alleged victims’ convictions. In addition, some of the petitions make specific claims about alleged violations of the guarantee of impartiality of the judges; alleged deficiencies in the office of the public defender; alleged lack of a formal reading of the charges and of legal counsel, and/or alleged inadequate prison conditions. 90. When examining the merits, the Commission will analyze whether in the criminal trials of the alleged victims, there was a violation of Article 8 (2) (h) of the American Convention, regarding the alleged lack of an ordinary procedure for a comprehensive examination of the alleged victims’ convictions.As to the allegations concerning inadequate prison conditions, the Commission finds that they are not manifestly groundless or obviously out of order; and will therefore examine them during the merits phase.With respect to the allegations in petition 1083-06 concerning the alleged extension of preventive detention, the Commission considers that the allegations are not manifestly groundless or obviously out of order. 91. As to the allegations in petition 233-04 on rights established in Articles 11 and 23 of the Convention, the Commission finds that the information supplied does not give grounds for considering an alleged violation. The Commission also finds that the allegation in petition 1083-06 on Article 22.7 of the Convention does not tend to establish a violation, since it does not appear that the State impeded or hindered the alleged victim’s right to seek asylum. As to the allegations presented in petition 664-09 concerning an alleged violation of Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, the Commission finds that no factual allegations have been presented concerning the specific situation of the alleged victim, Mr. Rojas Madrigal, that would enable it to consider a supposed violation of those rights. As to the violations alleged in petition 1174-04 regarding the rights upheld in Articles 17 and 19 of the American Convention, and in petition 587-05 regarding the alleged violation of Article 4 of the Convention, the Commission considers that no arguments have been presented to sustain an alleged violation of those rights. The Commission observes that several petitioners presented claims of alleged violations of Articles 9 and 24, but it finds that the arguments do not tend to establish possible violations of the Convention. It also indicates that no arguments have been presented to establish a possible violation of Article 29 of the American Convention. 92. By virtue of the foregoing, the IACHR finds that the claims presented by the alleged victims could establish or characterize a violation of the right upheld in Article 8 (2) (h) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof.By virtue of the allegations made by some of the petitioners, it also decides that when examining the merits, it will examine the alleged violation of Articles 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the Convention, inasmuch as the lack of grounds or inadmissibility of those aspects of the complaint are not evident. Thus, as to these aspects, the Commission concludes that the petition satisfies the requirements set forth in Article 47.b) and c) of the American Convention. V. CONCLUSIONS 20