7 35. The standard for evaluation of these points of law is different from that required in deciding the merits of a petition. In a prima facie evaluation, the Commission must determine whether the petition establishes the basis for an apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention, but not whether it establishes the existence of a violation. 2 This evaluation involves a summary analysis that does not entail a prejudgment or advance opinion on the merits. The very Rules of Procedure of the Commission, by establishing two separate stages of admissibility and merits, reflect this distinction between the evaluation that the Commission must perform for the purposes of declaring a petition admissible and the analysis required to establish the State’s responsibility for a human rights violation. 3 36. In this regard, the IACHR considers that the alleged facts pertaining to Claudina Isabel Velásquez, if proven true, would characterize potential violations of the rights guaranteed in Articles 5, 11, and 24 of the American Convention, considered in conjunction with Article 1(1) of that international instrument. The Commission further considers that the facts set forth could characterize a violation of Article 4 of the American Convention with respect to the prevention and protection duties of the State, in light of the general guarantee obligations of the State established in the American Convention and in the Convention of Belém do Pará. Moreover, the IACHR is of the view that the facts set forth could characterize possible violations of Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. 37. The IACHR further decides to declare the case admissible insofar as the alleged violation of the rights established in Articles 5.1, 8.1, and 25 are concerned, considered in accordance with Article 1.1 of that instrument, in respect of Jorge Rolando Velásquez Durán, Elsa Claudina Paiz Vidal de Velásquez, and Pablo Andrés Velásquez Paiz. The IACHR observes that the information does not provide sufficient elements to characterize a violation of the rights protected under Articles 11 and 24 of the American Convention with respect to Jorge Rolando Velásquez Durán, Elsa Claudina Paiz Vidal de Velásquez and Pablo Andrés Velásquez Paiz. V. CONCLUSIONS 38. The Inter-American Commission concludes that it is competent to examine the merits of this case and that the petition is admissible, in accordance with Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, and decides to continue with an analysis of the merits regarding the alleged violation of Articles 4, 5, 11, and 24, considered in accordance with Article 1.1 of that instrument, and of Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, to the detriment of Claudina Isabel Velásquez Paiz. It further decides to declare the case admissible with respect to the alleged violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 5.1, 8.1, and 25 of the American Convention, considered in accordance with Article 1.1 of said instrument, to the detriment of Jorge Rolando Velásquez Durán, Elsa Claudina Paiz Vidal de Velásquez, and Pablo Andrés Velásquez Paiz. 39. It also concludes that the petition is inadmissible regarding alleged violations of the rights enshrined in Articles 11 and 24 of the American Convention, with respect to Jorge Rolando Velásquez Durán, Elsa Claudina Paiz Vidal de Velásquez and Pablo Andrés Velásquez Paiz. 2 See IACHR, Report No. 128/01, Case 12367, Mauricio Herrera Ulloa and Fernán Vargas Rohrmoser of “La Nación” newspaper (Costa Rica), December 3, 2001, para. 50; Report No. 4/04, Petition 12324, Rubén Luis Godoy (Argentina), February 24, 2004, para. 43; Report No. 32/07, Petition 429-05, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia et al (Chile), April 23, 2007, para. 54. See IACHR, Report No. 31/03, Case 12195, Mario Alberto Jara Oñate et al (Chile), March 7, 2003, para. 41; Report No. 4/04, Petition 12324, Rubén Luis Godoy (Argentina), February 24, 2004, para. 43; Petition 429-05, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia et al (Chile), April 23, 2007, para. 54; Petition 581-05, Víctor Manuel Ancalaf LLaupe (Chile), May 2, 2007, para 46. 3