49. It does not appear from the record that the subject matter of the petition is pending any other international proceeding for settlement nor that it reproduces a petition already examined by the Commission or any other international body. 50. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the requirements established in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention have been met. 4. Characterization of the facts alleged 51. Article 47(b) of the Convention provides that any petition that “does not state facts that tend to establish a violation of the rights guaranteed by this Convention” shall be inadmissible. 52. The State argues that the complaint does not state facts that tend to establish human rights violations, and that therefore it has not violated, as petitioners state, the rights enshrined in Articles 2, 1(1), 8, 25, and 21 of the American Convention. 53. The Commission considers that it is not appropriate, at this stage of the procedure, to determine whether there has been a violation of the American Convention. For purposes of admissibility, the IACHR must decide whether facts are stated which, if true, would tend to establish a violation, as stipulated by Article 47(b) of the American Convention, and whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order,” as per Article 47(c). 54. The standard of appreciation of these rules is different from that required for deciding on the merits of the complaint. The IACHR must undertake a prima facie evaluation to examine whether the facts alleged in the complaint lay a foundation for the apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention, and not to establish the existence of a violation. This examination is a summary analysis that does not imply pre-judging the merits in any way. The Commission’s Rules of Procedure, on establishing two clear stages, admissibility and merits, reflects this distinction between the evaluation that must be undertaken by the Commission for the purpose of declaring a petition admissible, and for establishing a violation.8 55. With respect to this petition, the Commission considers that the arguments submitted by the State require an analysis on the merits, in order to reach a resolution. The IACHR does not find, accordingly, that the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order.” Furthermore, the IACHR considers that, prima facie, the petitioners have complied with the rules set forth at Article 47(b) and (c). V. CONCLUSIONS 56. The Commission concludes that it is competent to take cognizance of the complaint submitted by the petitioners, and that the petition is admissible in keeping with Articles 46 and 47 of the Convention. 57. Based on the foregoing arguments of fact and law, and without pre-judging on the merits, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, DECIDES: 1. To declare admissible the complaint lodged by the petitioners alleging violations of Articles 2, 8(1), 21, 25, and 1(1) of the American Convention to the detriment of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community of the Enxet People and its members. 8 IACHR, Report Nº 45/02, Admissibility, Petition 12.219, Cristián Daniel Salí Vera et al. (Chile), October 9, 2002, para. 32. 9