11 order,” as required under Article 47(c). The standard for assessing these particulars is different from the one required to decide the merits of a complaint. The Commission must conduct a prima facie evaluation to examine whether the complaint substantiates an apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention and not to establish the existence of a violation. This review is a summary analysis that does not involve any prejudgment or advanced opinion on the merits of the case. 67. Furthermore, neither the American Convention nor the Commission’s Rules of Procedure require petitioners to identify the specific rights alleged to have been violated by the State in a matter brought to the Commission’s attention, although the petitioners are free to do so. On the other hand, based on the case law of the system, in its admissibility reports the Commission is required to name which provisions of the relevant inter-American instruments apply; if the facts alleged are proven through sufficient means, it may rule that those instruments have been violated. 68. The State considered that the Commission is not a superior Tribunal to analyze factual or legal mistakes made by the domestic authorities within their jurisdictions and in accordance with the guarantees of a fair trial. In this respect, the Commission highlights that the aim of this petition is not to review the internal decisions but to determine if the alleged actions and omissions made by a variety of State’s authorities, including police officers and other authorities in charge of prosecution and investigation, would compromise the international responsibility of the State of Ecuador. 69. Regarding the State’s arguments related to the concept of “Fourth Instance”, in the Cabrera Montiel v. Mexico Case, the Inter-American Court indicated the following: […] It would be necessary that the petitioner asks the Court to review the decision of a domestic tribunal, without alleging at the same time, that the decision breached an international treaty, in 5 regards to which the Tribunal has jurisdiction over” . 70. The Commission observes that this hypothesis is not proven in the present case because, as was said, the aim is not to review the final decision of the process of the criminal case, but to examine if the whole procedure that had this decision as a result was compatible with the obligation to prosecute and punish adequately in cases of extrajudicial executions. Besides this, the petitioners were consistent in arguing that it is precisely the criminal process as a whole, including the final decision, that constituted a violation of the rights to a fair trial and to judicial protection. 71. In this sense, the Commission would like to clarify in this section of legal characterization that the analysis on the merits regarding a fair trial and judicial protection, will be focused on if the criminal procedure that ended on February 26, 2002, constituted an effective judicial answer in light of the Inter-American standards regarding the duty to prosecute and punish human rights violations with due diligence and within a reasonable time. In this analysis, the Commission will take into consideration the specific standards that govern the use of force in cases that result in the death of a person. Besides this, the Commission will evaluate the facts transversally taking into account that the victim was a teenager, and that, the response of the State must be evaluated in light of the duty of special protection. 5 I/A Court H.R., Case of Cabrera-García and Montiel-Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, par. 18.