12 of most of the facts alleged in the petition of the instant case must also be noted. In this regard, the IACHR finds that the requirement set forth under Article 46.1.b) of the Convention has been met. D. Duplication of International Proceedings and Res Judicata 58. Article 46.1.c) of the Convention provides that in order for petitions to be admissible they must meet the requirement that the subject “is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement.” Additionally, Article 47.d) of the Convention establishes that the Commission shall not admit any petition that is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization. In the instant case, the parties have not put forward any arguments for either of these two circumstances, nor can either of them be surmised from the information in the case file. E. Colorable Claim 59. For purposes of admissibility, the Commission must decide whether the petition states facts that could tend to establish a violation, as provided by Article 47.b) of the American Convention, whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or whether it is “obviously out of order,” as provided in subparagraph (c) of the same Article. The standard for evaluating these factual requirements is different from the requirement for deciding on the merits of a petition. The Commission must conduct a prima facie evaluation to determine whether the petition establishes grounds for the apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention, but not to establish the existence of a violation. This evaluation should perform a summary analysis that does not involve any prejudgment or advance opinion on the merits. 60. Neither the American Convention nor the IACHR Rules of Procedure require the petitioner to identify the specific rights that are allegedly violated by the State in the matter submitted to the Commission, even though the petitioners may do so. It is the job of the Commission, based on the legal precedents of the system, to determine in its admissibility reports, what provision of the relevant Inter-American instruments is applicable and could tend to establish a violation thereof if the alleged facts are proven by means of sufficient evidence. 61. The IACHR considers that, if the alleged forced disappearance and extrajudicial execution of the alleged victims and the presumed impunity surrounding the facts is proven true, these acts could constitute violations of the rights enshrined in Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 19 and 25 of the American Convention in connection with Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument. The Commission shall also examine in the merits section of this report any applicable provisions of the IACFDP. 62. Additionally, the Commission notes the issue raised by the State regarding the lack of identity of three of the alleged victims. In relation to the identification of alias Fredy and his wife, who would have been held on June 22, 1996, the Commission refers to the considerations expressed infra paras. 183-186. With respect to the person who would have been held on June 22, 1996 at the home of Dioscelina Quintero, the Commission considers that prima facie the elements to make a minimum individualization in order to consider him in the analysis on the mertis have not been met. V. ANALYSIS ON THE MERITS OF THE MATTER