10 3. Duplication of international proceedings and res judicata 51. From the case file there is nothing to indicate that the subject of the petition is pending before any other international settlement proceeding or that it reproduces a petition already examined by this or any other international body. Therefore, the requirements established in 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention are deemed to have been met. 4. Characterization of the facts alleged 52. The Commission considers that it is not fitting at this stage of the proceedings to decide whether the alleged violations occurred to the detriment of the alleged victims. For purposes of admissibility, the IACHR is at this point to decide solely whether the facts described, if proven, would characterize violations of the American Convention, as stipulated in Article 47(b) thereof, and whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “is obviously out of order,” in accordance with subparagraph (c) of the same Article. 53. The criteria for weighing these circumstances are different from those required in order to rule on the merits of a complaint. The IACHR is to undertake a prima facie assessment and determine whether the complaint establishes an apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the American Convention, but is 1 not to establish the existence of said violation. At this stage it is incumbent to conduct a summary analysis that does not prejudice or promote an opinion on the merits. The Inter-American Commission’s Rules of Procedure, having established one stage for admissibility and another for merits, reflect this distinction between the evaluation that the Inter-American Commission is to make in order to declare a petition admissible and that 2 required to establish whether a violation imputable to the State has been committed. 54. Furthermore, neither the American Convention nor the IACHR’s Rules of Procedure demand that the petitioner identify the specific rights that they allege were violated by the State in the matter submitted to the Commission, although they may do so. It is incumbent on the Commission, based on the system’s jurisprudence, to determine in its admissibility reports what provisions of the relevant Inter-American instruments are applicable and the violation of which may be established were the facts alleged proven through sufficient evidence. 55. In this sense, the IACHR considers that the facts alleged would characterize a potential violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 5, 8, 17, 18, 24 and 25 of the American Convention with respect to Mr. Gustavo Tobar, Mrs. Flor de María Ramírez, and Ricardo Osmín Tobar Ramírez and Jeffrey Rainiery Arias Ramírez, as well as Article 19 of the Convention with respect to Ricardo Osmín Tobar Ramírez y Jeffrey Rainiery Arias Ramírez, all in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of said Convention. V. CONCLUSIONS 56. The Inter-American Commission has concluded that is competent to hear the merits of this case and that the petition is admissible in keeping with Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention and has decided to continue with the analysis of the merits regarding the supposed violation of rights enshrined in Articles 5, 8, 17, 18, 24 and 25 of the Convention with respect to Mr. Gustavo Tobar, Mrs. Flor de María Ramírez and Ricardo Osmín Tobar Ramírez and Jeffrey Rainiery Arias Ramírez, as well as Article 19 of the Convention with respect to Ricardo Osmín Tobar Ramírez and Jeffrey Rainiery Arias Ramírez, all in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of said Convention. 1 See IACHR, Report No. 128/01, Case 12.367, Mauricio Herrera Ulloa and Fernán Vargas Rohrmoser of the Daily New spaper “ La Nación” (Costa Rica), December 3, 2001, paragraph 50; Report No. 4/04, Petition 12.324, Rubén Luis Godoy (Argentina), February 24, 2004, paragraph 43; Report No. 32/07, Petition 429 -05, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia et al. (Chile), April 23, 2007, paragraph 54. 2 See IACHR, Report No. 31/03, Case 12.195, Mario Alberto Jara Oñate et al. (Chile), March 7, 2003, paragraph 41; Report No. 4/04, Petition 12.324, Rubén Luis Godoy (Argentina), February 24, 2004, paragraph 43; Petition 429-05, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia et al. (Chile) April 23, 2007, paragraph 54; Petition 581 -05, Víctor Manuel Ancalaf LLaupe (Chile), May 2, 2007, paragraph 46.