9 ruling it considered that the claims alleged by the petitioner were the same as those brought before the Superior Court of Justice. 48. Because of the foregoing and in view of the evidence introduced by the parties and the nature of the matter before it, the Commission finds that the disputed aspects of the case under consideration should be addressed during the merits stage of the matter, in order to establish whether these aspects constitute violations of the right to judicial protection, which could tend to establish potential violations of Article 25 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1.1 thereof. Specifically, the IACHR finds that the alleged lack of judicial protection that will be examine at the merits stage, is tied to the determination as to whether, in light of the rights protected by the Convention, due process for dismissing a judicial official who holds a career position on a temporary basis is an enforceable obligation, and whether it is necessary to provide legal reasoning for said act. 49. The Commission finds that the petitioner has not put forth any arguments that tend to establish a violation of Articles 19 and 26 of the American Convention or of Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. Based on the circumstances of this case, the Commission does not have sufficient information to allow it to establish a potential violation of Article 24 of the Convention; therefore, the arguments relating to the violation of this right shall be examined as part of potential violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. 50. With regard to the labor proceeding, the IACHR shall examine whether the period of time it took to conduct this case was a violation of the guaranties enshrined in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention in connection with Article 1 of said instrument. 51. Lastly, in light of the petitioner’s arguments, it must be noted that Article 29 of the Convention shall be used, in its entirety, in this matter as well as all matters, as a guideline for the interpretation of States’ obligations under the Convention. V. CONCLUSIONS 52. The Commission concludes that it is competent to examine the claims lodged by the petitioner on the alleged violation of Articles 8.1 and 25 in connection with Article 1.1 and that these claims are admissible pursuant to the requirements set forth in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. It also concludes that it must find inadmissible the claim regarding the alleged violation of the Articles 19, 24 and 26 in connection with Article 1.1 of the American Convention, as well as Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. 53. the matter, Based on the foregoing arguments of fact and law and without prejudice to the merits of THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, DECIDES: 1. To find the instant case admissible with regard to Articles 8 and 25 in connection with Article 1.1 of the American Convention. 2. To notify the State of Colombia and the petitioner of the decision. 3. To continue with the analysis of the merits of the matter. Martinez Esquivia, because it is proven that the moving party had been serving in a career position with temporary status, and her appointment was rendered null and void under resolution No. 001048 of October 29, 2004, an administrative act without cause, and as of this date the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation has not provided sufficient reason for the dismissal of the aforementioned official.” Sectional Council of the Judiciary of Bolivar, case file number T037-2005, July 26, 2005.