rights was notified of the final judgment which exhausted the remedies available under domestic law. 77. The Commission has established that the remedies under domestic law were exhausted with Resolution 514/06 dated August 23, 2006 issued by the First Criminal Court of the Superior Court of Justice of La Paz, which was notified to the alleged victim on September 13, 2006. The petition was lodged on March 7, 2007. By virtue of this, the Commission concludes that this requirement has been satisfied. 3. Duplication of procedures and res judicata 78. Article 46(1)(c) of the Convention establishes that the admission of petitions is subject to the requirement that the subject of the petition “is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement,” and Article 47(d) of the Convention states that the Commission shall consider inadmissible any petition that is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization. In the present case, the parties have not argued that either of these circumstances apply in this case, and nor are they evident in the file. 4. Description of the alleged facts 79. The Commission must decide for the purposes of admissibility whether the petition describes events that tend to establish a violation of rights, as stipulated by Article 47(b) of the American Convention, or if the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order” according to sub-paragraph c of the same Article. The standard of judgment of these two extremes differs from that required to decide on the merits of a petition. The Commission must carry out a prima facie examination to examine whether or not the petition establishes the apparent or potential violation of a right protected by the Convention, not to establish the existence of a violation. This examination is a summary analysis that does not imply a prejudgment or anticipation of findings on the merits.17 80. The Commission considers that if it were proven that a sterilization procedure were carried out in a public hospital without consent, and if this resulted in the physical and psychological effects on I.V., this could amount to a possible violation of the rights enshrined in Article 5(1) of the American Convention in relation to the obligations enshrined in Article 1(1) of the same instrument. Equally, the facts could amount to a possible violation of Article 11(2) of the American Convention in relation to the obligations enshrined in Article 1(1) of the same instrument, with regard to the allegations made by the petitioner concerning the arbitrary interference by state employees in the private life of I.V. regarding whether or not to maintain her reproductive function, invading her private life.18 81. The Commission also considers that the facts could amount to a possible violation of Article 13 of the American Convention in relation to the obligations enshrined in Article 1(1) of the same instrument, allegedly for not having been adequately informed of the effects, risks and consequences of the surgical operation she was submitted to, and/or alternative methods as demanded by Bolivian law and the international standards of human rights in this area.19 See IACHR, Report No. 128/01, Case No. 12,367, Herrera and Vargas (“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 and Report No. 29/07, Petition 712-03, Elena Tellez Blanco, Costa Rica, April 26, 2007, paragraph 58. 18 The IACHR has previously stated that the right to privacy “guarantees that each individual has a sphere into which no one can intrude a zone of activity which is wholly one’s own.” It has also stated that, “Article 11.2 specifically prohibits “arbitrary or abusive” interference with this right. The article states that in addition to the condition of legality, which should always be observed when a restriction is imposed on the rights of the Convention, the state has a special obligation to prevent “arbitrary or abusive” interferences.” See IACHR, Report No. 38/96, Case 10,506, Argentina, October 15, 1996, paragraph 91. 19 Article 16 e) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women establishes that States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in all matters relating to marriage and family relations and in particular shall ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women: the same rights to decide 17 13