6 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. 33. Neither the American Convention nor the IACHR Rules of Procedure require a petitioner to identify the specific rights allegedly violated by the State in the matter brought before the Commission, although petitioners may do so. It is for the Commission, based on the system's jurisprudence, to determine in its admissibility report which provisions of the relevant Inter-American instruments are applicable and could be found to have been violated if the alleged facts are proven by sufficient elements. 34. In view of the evidence presented up to this point in the proceeding, the IACHR considers that the alleged forced disappearance of Mrs. Teresa Díaz Aparicio and the alleged impunity surrounding the crime could characterize violations of the rights enshrined in Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, as they relate to the obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of that instrument, as well as the rights established in Article I of the Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons, all to the detriment of Teresa Díaz Aparicio. In addition, the Commission concludes that these facts could constitute the violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 5, 8, and 25 of the American Convention as they relate to the obligations established in Article 1(1) of that instrument to the detriment of the relatives of Teresa Díaz Aparicio. 35. In the merits phase the Commission will examine whether the treatment of forced disappearance under domestic law and the potential 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. 36. Finally, inasmuch as the facts alleged by the petitioners do not appear to be obviously out of order or manifestly groundless, the Commission concludes that the complaint satisfies the requirements set forth in articles 47(b) and (c) of the American Convention. V. CONCLUSIONS 37. 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. 2. To notify the State and the petitioners of this decision. 3. To initiate proceedings on the merits of the matter. 4. To publish this decision and include it in the Annual Report of the Commission, to be presented to the General Assembly of the OAS.