30. The standard for evaluating these points is different from that required regarding the merits of a complaint. The IACHR must perform a prima facie assessment to examine whether the complaint provides the foundation for an apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed under the Convention and not to establish the existence of a violation. That assessment is a summary analysis that does not involve a prejudgment or preliminary opinion on the substance of the case. 13 31. The Commission does not find that the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order.” Consequently, the IACHR believes that the petitioner has, prima facie, demonstrated the points required under Article 47(b) and (c). 32. Based on the foregoing, the Inter-American Commission believes that if the facts reported with respect to the violation of the judicial guarantees of the affected provisional judge are proven, this case depicts a possible violation of Article 8 of the Convention, with respect to the guarantee of independence and impartiality of the judicial branch. Specifically, the Commission repeats that the guaranteed tenure of judges is part of that guarantee. 14 Further, the InterAmerican Commission finds that if the facts relating to different treatment accorded to tenured judges and the existence of cases where the reinstatement of illegally removed provisional judges has been ordered are proven, the instant case describes a possible unreasonable difference in the treatment given to the former provisional judge involved. The Commission will examine whether these allegations constitute a violation of Article 24 of the Convention. In addition, it must be pointed out that Mrs. Reverón’s allegation that she did not have the judicial protection required by her status as a judge represents a possible violation of Article 25 of the Convention. The Commission also believes that if the petitioner’s allegations are proven with respect to not having access and guaranteed tenure in public office under generally equal conditions, this could constitute violations of Articles 23 (1) (c) and 24 of the American Convention. 33. The possible violations will be analyzed as they relate to the general obligations established in Articles 1 and 2 of the American Convention. Finally, in view of the allegations made by the petitioner, it should be pointed out that Article 29 of the Convention will be used, in its entirety, in this as in all matters, as the guideline for interpretation of the State’s obligations under the Convention. V. CONCLUSIONS 34. Based on the factual and legal considerations presented, and without prejudging as to the substance of the matter, the Commission concludes that the instant case satisfies the requirements for admissibility stated in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, DECIDES: 1. To declare the petition under study admissible as they relate to Articles 1(1), 2, 8, 23(1)(c), 24 and 25 of the American Convention. 2. To inform the State and the petitioner of this decision. 3. To initiate proceedings on the substance of the matter. 4. To publish this decision and include it in the Annual Report for submission to the General Assembly of the OAS. Done and signed in the city of Guatemala, Guatemala, on the 20th day of the month of July 2006. (Signed): Evelio fernández Arévalos, President; Florentín Meléndez, Second Vice13 IACHR, Report No. 21/04, Petition 12.190, Admissibility, José Luis Tapia González et al., Chile, February 24, 2004, para. 33. 14 I/A Court HR, Case of the Constitutional Court, Judgment of January 31, 2001, Series C No. 71. 7