However, it is considering the possibility of forming a Working Group to review the investigation procedures. 29.In this regard, it is the opinion of the Commission that it is not appropriate at this stage of the process to establish whether or not the alleged violations occurred. For purposes of admissibility, the IACHR must decide whether the facts put forward tend to establish possible violations of the Conventions, as provided for by Article 47 (b) of the American Convention. The criterion to evaluate these points is different from the one required to decide on the merits of a complaint.The Inter-American Commission must carry out a prima facie evaluation, to examine whether the complaint contains any apparent violation or violations of the American Convention. This analysis is preliminary, and does not constitute prejudgment or the advancement of an opinion on the merits of the matter. 30.The arguments of the petitioners refer to facts that, should they be true, would constitute a violation of several rights guaranteed by the American Convention, the Convention of Belém do Pará and the Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. The Commission also notes preliminarily in the present case, that the alleged violations may have been aggravated by the pain and humiliation of the alleged victim due to her condition as an indigenous person and her lack of knowledge of the language of her aggressors. 7The IACHR believes that the facts presented require a more thorough and complete study at the merits stage.On the other hand, although the petitioners have not invoked Article 19 of the American Convention and Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, based on the principle iura novit curia, the Commission will hear arguments related to alleged violations of said Articles. 31.It is the opinion of the IACHR that, should the facts be proven, they would constitute the violation of the rights of Inés Fernández Ortega guaranteed by Articles 5(1), 7, 8(1), 11, 19, 21, and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with the general obligations provided for by Article 1(1). Likewise, it is of the opinion that the facts put forward could constitute possible violations of Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, and of Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. 32.In regards to Article 17 of the American Convention, invoked by the petitioners, the IACHR considers it is admissible.However, the decision regarding this provision at the merits stage will require more clear, complete and detailed information from each of the parties. 33.Based on the aforementioned, the IACHR concludes that the petitioners have prima facie met the requirements established by Article 47 (b) of the American Convention. V. CONCLUSIONS 34.The Inter-American Commission concludes that it is competent to examine the merits of this case and that the petition is admissible pursuant to Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. Based on the foregoing arguments in fact and in law, and without prejudging on the merits of the case, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS DECIDES: 1. To declare the petition admissible regarding alleged violations, with prejudice to Inés Fernández Ortega, of the rights protected by Articles 5(1), 7, 8(1), 11, 17, 19, 21, and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with the general obligations provided for by Article 1(1) of said treaty; of Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, and of Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. 2. To notify the parties of this decision. 3. To continue with the analysis of the merits of the case, and 7IACHR, Report Nº 53/01, Case 11,565, Ana, Beatriz and Celia González Pérez, México, April 4, 2001, para. 95. 6