10 Preceito Fundamental No. 153 (“ Action of Incompliance w ith Fundamental Precept No. 153” or “ ADPF No. 153” ). That action w as brought on October 21, 2008, by the Federal Council of the Brazilian Bar Association. The IACHR notes that on April 29, 2010, the Federal Supreme Court declared that ADPF No. 153 w as inadmissible and upheld the validity and constitutionality of Law No. 6.683/79, through a decision that “ has an erga omnes effect to w hich no remedy applies.” 21 38. Based on all the foregoing, and especially taking into account that the petitioners are claiming that Law No. 6.683/79 is incompatible w ith the American Convention, and that there is ongoing impunity w ith respect to the violations perpetrated against the alleged victim —w hich presumably continues to this day because of the aforementioned amnesty law —the IACHR concludes that the petition w as lodged w ithin a reasonable period of time, and that it meets the requirement established in Article 32 .2 of the IACHR Rules of Procedure. In adopting this decision, the IACHR is also taking into account the specific circumstances related to the successive attempts made by the São Paulo State Public Prosecutor’ s Office, the Federal Public Prosecutor’ s Office, and the Brazilian Bar Association to judicially challenge the validity of the Brazilian amnesty law — attempts that w ent on until the year 2010 —as w ell as the successive events that took place beginning w ith the enactment of Law No. 9.140 in 1995, the subsequent creation of the CEMDP, and its final report published in 2007. D. Duplication of proceedings and international Res Judicata 39. There is no indication in the record that the subject of this petition is pending settlement in another international proceeding or that the petition duplicates one previously examined by the Commission or by another international organization. Therefore, the requirements established in Articles 46.1.c and 47.d of the Convention have been satisfied. E. Colorable claim 40. For purposes of admissibility, the Inter-American Commission must decide w hether the facts alleged in the petition tend t o establish a violation of rights guaranteed by the American Convention, as required by Article 47 .b, or w hether the petition should be rejected as " manifestly groundless" or " obviously out of order." At this point of the proceedings, the IACHR must perform a prima facie evaluation, not to establish alleged violations of the American Convention or any other applicable treaty, but to determine w hether the petition describes facts that could constitute violations of rights protected by inter-American instruments. This examination in no w ay constitutes a prejudgment on the merits of the matter. 41. Neither the American Convention nor the IACHR Rules of Procedure require a petitioner to identify the specific rights allegedly violated by the State in the matter brou ght before the Commission, although petitioners may do so. It is for the Commission, based on the system' s jurisprudence, to determine in its admissibility report w hich provisions of the relevant InterAmerican instruments are applicable and could be found to have been violated if the alleged facts are proven by sufficient elements. 42. In this case, t he petitioners claim that the alleged victim w as arbitrarily detained, tortured, and killed by DOI/CODI agents on October 25, 1975, because of his activity as a journalist. The IACHR finds that, if proved to be true, such allegations—along w ith the pertinent acts that took place until July 20, 1989, and September 25, 1992 —could constitute violations of Articles I, IV, XVIII, and XXV of the American Declaration. Furthermore, the IACHR deems that the petitioners' claims do not lay out facts that w ould constitute a violation of Article XXVI of the I/A Court H.R. Case of Gomes Lund et al. (“ Guerrilla do Araguaia” ) v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No 219, para. 136. 21