the investigation into a violent death for which the theory of the investigating authority is suicide.13 64. Accordingly, the Commission finds that based on the submissions of both parties, the allegations of the petitioners are not “manifestly groundless” nor “obviously out of order.” Therefore, in keeping with precedents and the arguments of the parties in the instant case, it finds that the arguments put forth regarding the alleged violations of the right to judicial protection and a fair trial, as well as the right to humane treatment, should they be proven during the merits stage, could tend to establish a violation of the rights protected under Articles 5, 8, 25 and 1.1 of the American Convention. 65. However, the IACHR finds that the petitioners have not put forward arguments of fact or law to substantiate and presume in this stage of the proceedings, an alleged violation of the right to life, personal liberty and privacy, as enshrined in Articles 4, 7 and 11 of the American Convention on Human Rights and the duty to adopt domestic measures as protected under Article 2 of the same instrument. Likewise, the Commission finds that the petitioners have not offered arguments that could tend to establish alleged violations of Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. V. CONCLUSIONS 66. The Commission concludes that it 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 decides to proceed to the analysis of the merits with regard to the alleged violation of Articles 5, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1.1 of said international instrument, with respect to Mrs. Digna Ochoa y Plácido and her next-of-kin. In the merits stage, the IACHR shall assess, to the extent that it may be relevant, the results of the “Report on the verification of the technical evidence in the criminal investigation into the death of Digna Ochoa y Plácido, conducted by the Office of the Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Attorney General of the Federal District of Mexico” prepared and submitted by the international verification mission. 67. Based on the foregoing arguments of fact and law, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, DECIDES: 1. To find the instant petition admissible as to the alleged violations of the rights recognized in Articles 5, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 of said treaty to the detriment of Mrs. Digna Ochoa y Plácido and her family members. 2. To find the instant petition inadmissible as to the alleged violations of Articles 2, 4, 7 and 11 of the American Convention on Human Rights and as to Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the InterAmerican Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. 3. To notify the parties of this decision. analyzed whether “all the evidence is properly analyzed and the conclusions are consistent and reasoned.” In said case, the European Court stressed that it would be “it would be inappropriate and contrary to its subsidiary role under the Convention to attempt to establish the facts of this case on its own, duplicating the efforts of the domestic authorities which are better placed and equipped for that purpose.” It further stated: “Following its well-established practice, it will confine the examination of this application to an evaluation of the domestic investigation into the matter as regards its overall compliance with the aforementioned standards [referring to the legal precedents of the European Court regarding Article 2 of the Convention].” Cfr. ECHR, Masneva v. Ukraine, no. 5952/07, § 49 ,51. 13 In this regard, the IACHR found admissible a case in which the State, in contradiction to the petitioners, claimed that the alleged victim had committed suicide, taking into consideration how long the investigation has been going on, as well as arguments of the petitioners pertaining to alleged irregularities in the investigation, such as some of the evidence pointing to the death not being a suicide; that the statements of eye witnesses were conflicting and that some forensic tests performed on the body of the alleged victim showed that the injuries of the alleged victim were compatible with the theory of homicide. See IACHR, Report No. 83/07, José Iván Correa Arévalo, October 16, 2007, par. 54. 13