26. It is the Commission’s understanding that there is nothing on record to indicate that the petition is pending in any other international proceeding for settlement; nor has the Commission received any information indicating the presence of a situation of that kind. It is also the Commission’s understanding that this petition is not substantially the same as any petition or communication previously examined by it. Hence, the requirements set forth in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention have been met. 4. Characterization of the facts alleged 27. In the instant case, the Commission’s view is that this is not the proper phase in the proceedings to determine whether the alleged violations of the supposed victim’s right to freedom of expression did or did not occur. For admissibility purposes, all the Commission need establish at this phase of the proceedings is whether the facts alleged, if proven, tend to establish a violation of rights guaranteed by this Convention, as stipulated in Article 47(b) of the American Convention, or whether the petition is, in the language of Article 47(c), “manifestly groundless or obviously out of order.” 28. The standard for evaluating these admissibility requirements is different from the standard for deciding the merits of a petition. The Commission must conduct a prima facie evaluation to determine whether the petition establishes grounds for the apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention, but not to establish the existence of a violation. This examination involves a summary analysis that does not imply a prejudgment of the merits; neither does it suggest any opinion on the merits. By establishing two separate phases -one for admissibility and the other for the merits- the Commission’s own Rules of Procedure make the distinction between the examination the Commission must make to determine whether a complaint is admissible and the examination required to determine whether a violation has in fact occurred. 29. It is the Commission’s opinion that the arguments made by the petitioners and by the State regarding the alleged violation of freedom of expression pose a legal question that could tend to establish a violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 13 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. To settle these arguments, the merits of the case have to be examined. 30. When it examines the merits, the Commission will have to determine whether the imposition of a monetary liability in the case of Messrs. Jorge Fontevecchia and Héctor D’Amico was in keeping with the obligations set forth in Article 13 of the American Convention, the obligation to ensure the exercise of that right to all persons subject to the State’s jurisdiction and the obligation to adopt the domestic legislative and other measures to ensure the Convention- protected rights, as provided in Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. The Commission will examine this matter from the standpoint of the dispute between the parties as to whether the information reported was public or private and the fact that one of the persons mentioned in the articles was the President of the Nation. 31. The Commission finds that since the petitioners’ claim alleging violation of Article 8 of the American Convention has not been properly substantiated, it will be declared inadmissible. V. CONCLUSION 32. The Commission concludes that it is competent to take cognizance of this case and that the petition fulfills the admissibility requirements prescribed in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, and Articles 30, 37 and related provisions of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. Based on the arguments of fact and of law set forth above, and without prejudging the merits of the case, 5