case, neither party has argued that either of those reasons for inadmissibility exist, nor can that be inferred from the case file. E. Characterization of the alleged facts 71. For the purpose of admissibility, the Commission must determine if the petition states facts that tend to establish a violation of rights as established in Article 47.b of the American Convention, if the petition is “manifestly groundless” or if it is “obviously out of order,” as established in paragraph c of the same article. The standard to evaluate these limits is different than the standard required to decide on the merits of a complaint. The Commission must do a prima facie evaluation to examine if the complaint provides grounds to sustain the apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention but not to establish that a violation has occurred. That evaluation is a summary analysis which does not imply prejudging or advancing an opinion on the merits. 72. The Peruvian State argued that the facts that motivated the petition do not subsist because they were resolved by the Constitutional Court on May 10, 2001. From the information contained in the case file, the Commission notes that the decision cited by the State determined that the enforcement of judgment process was the appropriate legal avenue to remedy the petition. At the same time, it was decided to return the case to the State which, by judicial order, was required to direct the appropriate authorities to enforce the judgment. 12 Almost nine years have elapsed since that decision was issued and, to this date, the enforcement of judgment process has not been closed. The petitioners continue to allege that the amparo judgment in their favor has not been enforced. The Commission considers that the State’s argument is without grounds and that the available information clearly shows that the facts that motivated the petition subsist to this date. 73. In that respect, the Commission considers that if the alleged facts were true, these could constitute a violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 21 13, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, with 12 Constitutional Court. Judgment dated May 10, 2001. Doc. No. 104-2001-AA/TC. 13]The Commission considers that if it were proven that the alleged non-enforcement of judgment prevented the alleged victims to have access to effective recourse with regard to their property rights, especially with regard to the pensions adjusted in accordance with the system they were regulated by, the facts could constitute violation of the right to property. See: I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Five Pensioners”. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98 24