on Human Rights is convention-based in that it derives from the American Convention on Human Rights. The Commission, in contrast to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions, falls within the category of treaty supervisory bodies. 42. The nature of the two international entities is also different. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions is not empowered to adjudicate specific cases and the individual communication process before that office is not oriented toward a solution of an adversarial nature. In effect, the individual communication mechanism before the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions is of a nature that cannot lead to an effective settlement in the terms of Article 33.2(a) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. Its procedure, which is not adversarial in nature, is limited to requesting clarification from the interested government regarding complaints. 43. The procedure before the Inter-American System for the Protection of Human Rights, on the other hand, is adversarial in nature and the Inter-American Commission does have an adjudicatory role. The procedure before the IACHR may conclude with a series of recommendations that the States must make good faith efforts to fulfill.10 44. The Commission concludes, therefore, that the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions does not belong to the category of international bodies whose mandate may result in a duplication such as that referred to in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the American Convention. 11 4. Characterization of the Alleged Facts 45. Article 47(b) of the Convention establishes that the Commission shall declare inadmissible any petition or communication presented when “it does not state facts that tend to establish a violation of the rights guaranteed by this Convention.” The Commission’s view is that the petitioners’ allegations described in Section III of this report, could represent prima facie violations of Articles 4, 8, and 25 of the American Convention to the detriment of Johan Alexis Ortiz Hernández, and Articles 8, and 25 to the detriment of Edgar Humberto Ortiz Ruiz and Zaida Hernández de Arellano, in relation to the obligations set forth in Article 1.1 of that statute. 46. Consequently, the IACHR concludes that on this point the case is admissible in accordance with the provisions of Article 47(b). V. CONCLUSIONS 47. The Commission concludes that the case is admissible and that it is competent to examine the petition presented by the petitioners concerning the alleged violation of Articles 4, 8, and 25 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of Johan Alexis Ortiz Hernández and his parents, in 10 Inter-American Court, Loayza Tamayo Case, Judgment of September 17, 1997, Ser. C, No. 33, paras. 80 and 81. 11 IACHR, Report 30/99, Colombia. Case 11.206, César Chaparro Nivia and Vladimir Hincapié Galeano. March 11, 1999, paras. 25 and 26. In this case the Colombian State claimed the failure to fulfill Article 46.1 (c) of the Convention claiming that the matter alleged by the victims was being studied by the Special Rapporteur on the Question of Torture and the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions.