the proceedings, the IACHR is called upon to perform a prima facie evaluation and determine whether the complaint provides grounds for an apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the American Convention, but not whether the violation has in fact occurred. The evaluation for admissibility purposes is a summary analysis that does not imply any prejudgment of or advance any opinion on the merits. 51. The Commission considers that the purported forced disappearance of the alleged victim, the fact that the military justice system was seized of the complaints filed in the case for various years, and the fact that no one has ever been punished for the crimes alleged, could constitute violations of rights protected in articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations set forth in Article 1(1) thereof, and of the rights established in Article I of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons (hereinafter “the ICFDP”), all to the detriment of Rigoberto Tenorio Roca. The Commission also finds that these facts could constitute violations of the rights protected in articles 5, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Rigoberto Tenorio Roca’s next of kin. 52. In the merits phase, the Commission will examine whether the way in which forced disappearance is criminalized in Peruvian domestic law and the alleged negative effects of the amnesty laws on criminal prosecutions would constitute a failure to comply with the obligation to adopt domestic legal measures, undertaken in Article 2 of the American Convention and Article III of the ICFDP. 53. The petitioners have not alleged violation of specific provisions of the American Convention or other inter-American instruments. Therefore, based on all the information supplied thus far and by virtue of the principle of jura novit curia, the IACHR has characterized the possible violations of articles of the Convention and of the ICFDP described in the preceding paragraphs. V. CONCLUSIONS 54. Based on the considerations of fact and of law set forth herein and without prejudging the merits of the case, the Inter-American Commission concludes that the present case satisfies the admissibility requirements set forth in articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention and, therefore, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS DECIDES: 1. To declare the present petition admissible with respect to articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, and with respect to articles I and III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. 2. To notify the state and the petitioners of this decision. 3. To proceed to its examination of the merits of the case. 4. To publish this decision and include it in the Annual Report to be presented to the OAS General Assembly. Done and signed in the city of Washington, D.C., on the 15th day of the month of March, 2010. (Signed: Felipe González, President Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, First Vice-President; Dinah Shelton, Second Vice-President; María Silvia Guillén, José de Jesús Orozco Henríquez, and Rodrigo Escobar Gil, Commissioners). 9