4. Description of the facts 31. In the instant case, at this stage of the proceeding, the Commission does not decide whether the alleged violations of the alleged victim’s human rights according to the articles of the Convention, took place. For the purposes of admissibility, the Commission must only decide if facts are layed out which, should they be proven, could constitute violations of the Convention, as provided for by article 47.b of the American Convention, and if the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order,” pursuant to subsection (c) of the same article. 32. The criterion to assess these matters is different from the one necessary to judge on the merits of the complaint. The IACHR must carry out a prima facie evaluation and determine whether the complaint provides evidence of an apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention; it does not need to establish the existence of said violation. The examination it should carry out at this stage is simply a preliminary analysis that does not imply a prejudgment or opinion on the merits of the case. The Rules of Procedure of the Commission itself, in establishing two clear stages of admissibility and of merits, provides this distinction between the evaluation that the Commission must make in order to declare a petition admissible and the one required to establish the existence of a violation. 33. It is the opinion of the Commission that the arguments of the State contending that there were no violations of the rights to personal liberty, freedom of expression, to a fair trial and to judicial protection, do not address questions of admissibility which could demonstrate that the petition is manifestly groundless or obviously out of order. These arguments shall be examined in the merits stage of the case. 34. In the instant case the Commission considers that the arguments submitted by the petitioner, regarding the possible violation of articles 7, 8, 13, and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with articles 1.1 and 2 of same, are not manifestly groundless. 35. With respect to the complaint regarding the alleged violation of article 5 of the American Convention, it is the opinion of the Commission that the petitioner has not provided proper grounds and therefore this portion of the petition is inadmissible. V. CONCLUSION 36. The Commission concludes that it is competent to hear this petition and that the petition meets the requirements of admissibility, in accordance with articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, and with articles 30, 37 and others in concordance, and its rules of procedure. Based on the foregoing arguments in fact and in law, and without prejudging the merits of the case, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, DECIDES: 1. To declare the petition admissible concerning articles 7, 8, 13 and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with articles 1.1 and 2, and to declare inadmissible the complaint regarding article 5 of same. 2. To notify the State and the petitioners of this decision. 3. To proceed with the analysis of the merits of the case. 4. To publish this decision and include it in the Annual Report of the IACHR to the OAS General Assembly. Done and signed in the city of Washington, D.C., on the 15th day of the month of March, 2006. (Signed): Evelio Fernández Arévalos, President; Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, First Vice-President; 6