order” according to Article 47(c). The parameters for judgment on these grounds are different from the requirements for deciding on the merits of a petition. The Commission must conduct a prima facie review to determine whether the facts alleged would provide grounds for an apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the American Convention, and not establish whether a violation actually occurred. This is a summary analysis, which does not imply prejudice or advance an opinion on the merits of the case.15 63. The Commission finds that if true, the facts alleged regarding the deaths of Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto, David Octavio Díaz Loreto, and Octavio Ignacio Díaz Álvarez could constitute violations of their rights established in Articles 4 and 5 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of same. Furthermore, the Commission finds that the prior arrest of Robert Ignacio Diaz Loreto may constitute a violation of the right established in Article 7 of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of same. By virtue of the principle of jura novit curia, the Commission considers that if the alleged facts surrounding the death of Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto are true, they may also constitute violations of Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the InterAmerican Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. 64. The Commission further considers that the alleged failure to investigate and sanction those responsible for these acts may constitute violations of the rights of the victims’ family members as established in Articles 5, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations established in Article 1(1) of same. 65. Finally, the Commission considers that the facts reported regarding the allegedly illegal and arbitrary arrests of Bladimir Lenin Díaz Loreto and Miguel Angel Díaz Loreto, the alleged physical assault on the latter, and the alleged failure to investigate these events, may characterize violations of the rights established in Articles 5, 7, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations established in Article 1(1) of same. V. CONCLUSIONS 66. Based on the arguments in fact and in law presented above, and with no pre-judgment on the merits of the case, the Commission concludes that it is competent to hear this case and that the petition is admissible according to Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, and therefore THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS DECIDES: 1. To declare this case admissible with respect to the alleged violations of rights protected under Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, and 25, in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention. The alleged violation of Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture was included by the Commission by virtue of the principle of jura novit curia. 15 IACHR, Report N° 21/04, Petition 12,190, Admissibility, José Luis Tapia González et al., Chile, February 24, 2004, para. 33. 13