attaining justice, and that justice cannot be sacrificed for the sake of mere formalities. 8 It should be noted that the Peruvian State did not dispute this point. The Commission therefore believes that the requirement contained in Article 46.1.b has been met. D. Duplication of Proceedings and Res Judicata 67. Article 46.1.c provides that the admissibility of petitions lodged with the Commission is subject to the requirement that the matter “is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement,” and Article 47.d of the Convention provides that the Commission shall not admit a petition that is “substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization.” In the case at hand, the parties have not claimed that either of those reasons for inadmissibility are applicable, nor can they be deduced from the case file. E. Characterization of the Alleged Facts 68. For admissibility purposes, the Commission must decide whether the petition states facts that could tend to establish a violation, as required by Article 47.b of the American Convention, and whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order,” as stated in Article 47.c. The level of conviction regarding those standards is different from that which applies in deciding on the merits of a complaint. The Commission must conduct a prima facie assessment to examine whether the complaint entails an apparent or potential violation of a right protected by the Convention and not to establish the existence of such a violation. That examination is a summary analysis that does not imply prejudging the merits or offering an advance opinion on them. 69. The Commission considers that facts reported by the petitioner regarding the alleged inversion of the burden of proof during his criminal trial, together with his conviction on the grounds that he did not fully establish his innocence, could tend to establish a violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the obligations contained in Article 1.1 thereof. 70. The Commission also holds that the petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to give a prima facie indication of violations of Articles 5, 9, 10, 11, and 24 of the American Convention. V. CONCLUSIONS 71. Based on the foregoing considerations of fact and law, and without prejudging the merits of the case, the Inter-American Commission concludes that this case satisfies the admissibility requirements set out in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention and, consequently, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS DECIDES: 1. To declare this petition admissible, as regards the rights protected by Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the obligations contained in Article 1.1 thereof. 2. To declare this petition inadmissible as regards the rights protected by Articles 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 24 of the American Convention. 3. To give notice of this decision to the State and to the petitioner. 8 IACHR, Report 44/01, Emilio Moisés and Rafael Samuel Gómez Paquiyauri (Peru), March 5, 2001, paragraph 27; IACHR, Report 39/06, Carlos Rafael Alfonzo Martínez (Venezuela), March 15, 2006, paragraph 28. Citing: I/A Court H.R., Cayara Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of February 3, 1993, paragraph 42. 9