10 provided by Article 47(b) thereof, and w hether the petition is “ manifestly groundless” or “ obviously out of order,” as indicated in section (c) of that same article. 52. The level of conviction regarding those standards is different from that w hich applies in deciding on the merits of a complaint The Committee has to make a prima facie assessment and determine w hether the petition tends to establish violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention, not w hether it actually establishes said violation. 2 At this stage, w hat is called for is a summary analysis that implies no prejudgment or advance opinion on the merits. The Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission, by establishing separate phases for admissibility and merits, reflects that distinction betw een the evaluation the Inter-American Commission is to conduct in order to rule a petition admissible and the examination needed to determine w hether a violation for w hich the State is responsible w as committed. 3 53. 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 brought 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. 54. In this regard, the IACHR believes that the claims regarding the alleged victims, if proven, could tend to establish violations of the rights guaranteed by Articles 5, 7, 8, 11, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction w ith Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. In addition, it believes that the claims made regarding the discriminatory nature of the sexual violence purportedly perpetrated against the alleged victims, together w ith the treatment they received w hile under arrest and, later, as complainants, could tend to establish a violation of Article 24 of the American Convention, in conjunction w ith Articles 1 (1) and 2 thereof. Similarly, the IACHR believes that the alleged facts could tend to establish violations of Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. The IACHR further decides to rule the case admissible as regards the alleged violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. V. CONCLUSIONS 55. The Commission concludes that it has competence to examine the merits of this case and that the petition is admissible under Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, and it decides to continue w ith its analysis of the merits regarding the alleged violation of Articles 5, 7, 8, 11, 24, and 25, in conjunction w it h Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, and of Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, w ith respect to Mariana Selvas Gómez, Georgina Edith Rosales Gutiérrez, María Patricia Romero Hernández, Norma Aidé Jiménez Osorio, Claudia Hernández Martínez, Bárbara Italia Méndez Moreno, Ana María Velasco Rodríguez, Yolanda Muñoz Diosdada, Cristina Sánchez Hernández, Patricia Torres Linares, and Suhelen Gabriela Cuevas Jaramillo. The IACHR further decides to rule the case admissible as regards the alleged violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. 2 See: IACHR, Report No. 128/01, Case 12.367, Mauricio Herrera Ulloa and Fernán Vargas Rohrmoser of La Nación New spaper (Costa Rica), December 3, 2001, para. 50; Report No. 4/04, Petition 12.324, Rubén Luis Godoy (Argentina), February 24, 2004, para. 43; Report No. 32/07, Petition 429 -05, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia and Others (Chile), April 23, 2007, para. 54. 3 See: IACHR, Report No. 31/03, Case 12.195, Mario Alberto Jara Oñate and Others (Chile), March 7, 2003, para. 41; Report No. 4/04, Petition 12.324, Rubén Luis Godoy (Argentina), February 24 2004, para. 43; Petition 429 -05, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia and Others (Chile), April 23, 2007, para. 54; Petition 581-05, Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe (Chile), May 2, 2007, para. 46.