to the Commission on the outcome of these proceedings and the State was made aware of it. The Commission reiterates its doctrine according to which analysis of the requirements provided for under Article 46 and 47 of the Convention must be conducted in light of the situation in effect at the time the ruling is issued on admissibility of the case.16 Accordingly, as to these aspects of the petition, the Commission finds that the requirement set forth in Article 46.1.b of the Convention regarding timeliness of the petition has been satisfied. D. Duplication of International Proceedings and Res Judicata 53. 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 54. 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. In this evaluation, a summary analysis should be performed, which does not involve any prejudgment or advance opinion on the merits. 55. 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. 56. The IACHR considers that, should the facts alleged by the petitioner prove to be true, these acts could constitute violations of the rights to humane treatment, personal liberty, a fair trial and judicial protection, enshrined in Articles 5, 7, 8 and 25, in connection with Articles 1.1 and 2 of the American Convention. By the same token, the Commission considers that the alleged failure to investigate the alleged acts of torture after said Convention took effect could tend to establish potential violations of Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. V. PROVEN FACTS A. Police Investigation into Operation “Linda” 57. The report of the Interpol Office of Pichincha pertaining to the sting operation known as “Operación Linda” states that “through classified information” attention was brought to “illegal activities,” which were conducted by a woman whose last name is Tinitana Ludeña, prompting execution of “Basic 16 IACHR, Report No. 24/07, Petition 661-03, Admissibility, Liakat Ali Alibux, Surinam, March 9, 2007; IACHR, Report No. 67/11, Case 11.157, Admissibility and Merits, Gladys Carol Espinoza Gonzales, Peru, March 31, 2011, para. 44; IACHR, Report No. 108/10, Petition 744-98 et al, Admissibility, Orestes Auberto Urriola Gonzáles et al, Peru, August 26, 2010, para. 54; Report No. 2/08, Petition 506-05, Inadmissibility, José Rodríguez Dañín, Bolivia, March 6, 2008, para. 56; and Report No. 20/05, Petition 716-00, Admissibility, Rafael Correa Díaz, Peru, February 25, 2005, para. 32. 10