respected and one’s dignity recognized in accordance with Article 11 of the American Convention. 6 73. Moreover, the Commission finds that the allegations of the petitioner regarding the acts of sexual violence to which she was subjected, in addition to being violations of the rights protected by the American Convention, would, if true, also be violations of the rights enshrined in the Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture and in the Convention of Belem do Pará. In point of fact, although the petitioner has not invoked them, on the basis of the principle of iura novit curia, 7 the IACHR considers that the facts described warrant a more precise and exhaustive examination at the merits stage with regard to the alleged violation of Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent, Punish and Eradicate Torture, as well as Article 7 of the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence Against Women (Convention of Belém do Pará). Finally, on the basis of the abovementioned principle, the IACHR considers it appropriate to examine the compatibility of the norms applied to the trial of the alleged victim with Article 2 of the American Convention. 74. However, the Commission finds that the petitioner alleges that the threats against her life and the imminent danger of an attempt on her life during her detention at the DINCOTE facilities amount to a violation of the right to life set forth in Article 4 of the Convention. The Commission, in accordance with the previous paragraphs, will consider such arguments at the merits stage in relation to the provisions of Article 5 (right to humane treatment) of the American Convention, and in relation to Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. On these grounds, the Commission finds the allegation of the violation of Article 4 of the Convention inadmissible. 75. Furthermore, the Commission considers that the petitioner did not substantiate independent facts to establish a prima facie case for the possible violation of her rights to freedom of expression and to reply or make a correction as enshrined in Articles 13 and 14 of the American Convention. Consequently, the Commission declares inadmissible this element of the petition. 76. In consideration of the above, the IACHR concludes that the petitioner hasprima facie established the elements required according to Article 47.b of the American Convention, with regard to the alleged violations of the rights enshrined in Articles 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 25 of the American Convention, all in relation to the general obligation to respect and protect established by Article 1.1 and with the duty to adopt domestic legal effects established in Article 2, both found in the Convention. For its part, the IACHR concludes that by virtue of the principle of iura novit curia, it will proceed to examine the alleged violation of Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture; and Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará at the corresponding merits stage. Finally, the Commission concludes that the petition does not include sufficient allegations of independent violation of the rights protected by Articles 4, 13, and 14 of the American Convention. V. CONCLUSIONS 77. The Commission concludes that it has competence to examine the complaints lodged by the petitioner in relation to the alleged violation of rights protected under Articles 5 (Humane Treatment), 7 (Personal Liberty), 8 (Fair Trial), 9 (Freedom from ex Post Facto Laws), 11 (Privacy), and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in line with the general obligation to respect and protect established in Article 1.1 and with the duty of domestic legal effects established in Article 2, both of the aforementioned international instrument, to the detriment of the alleged victim. Furthermore, the Commission concludes that it is competent to examine at the merits stage the alleged violations of Articles 1, 6, and 8 6 See in general I/A Court H.R., Castro Castro Prison Case, Judgment November 25, 2006, Series C. 160, in particular paragraphs 351-360. 7 See similarly, IACHR, Report No. 93/06, Petition 972-03 (admissibility), Valentina Rosendo Cantú and others, vs. Mexico, October 21, 2006, paragraph 33 and following. 12