though the petitioners may do so. However, it is the duty of the Commission, in following the system of legal precedents, to determine in its admissibility reports which provision of relevant inter-American instruments is applicable and could be deemed to have been violated, should the alleged facts be proven by means of sufficient evidence. 50. In the instant petition, a series of arguments have been presented on the alleged violation of the rights to a fair trial and to judicial protection enshrined in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. For its part, the State alleges that the fact that the ruling went against the petitioner does not mean that the decision was arbitrary or unlawful. 51. In view of the elements of fact and of law presented by the parties and the nature of the matter put to it for consideration, the IACHR is of the view that the petitioner’s allegations regarding the proceedings allegedly instituted against him to remove him from his position as Prosecutor, presumably in violation of the rights to a fair trial and to judicial protection, could tend to establish violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention in relation to Article 1.1 thereof. 52. The Commission notes that the alleged facts could tend to establish violations of the duty to adopt provisions under domestic law in relation to the right to appeal the decision before a higher body, in the proceeding before the JEM, since the only action envisaged to appeal said decision would be the action of unconstitutionality. Therefore, the IACHR shall also, during the merits stage, examine the applicability of Article 2 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1.1 thereof. Likewise, the Commission considers that it should examine during the merits stage whether the standard applied in the proceeding that culminated in the removal of the petitioner from his post was consistent with the principle of legality recognized in the American Convention, a principle that must be adhered to in the context of disciplinary and prosecutorial proceedings since the failure to do so could constitute a violation of Article 9 of said instrument. 53. Lastly, the Commission considers that the petitioner has not presented basic elements in support of his claims regarding the alleged violation of Article 10 of the American Convention. Therefore, this complaint does not meet the requirements established in Article 47.b of the American Convention and it is therefore found to be inadmissible. V. CONCLUSIONS 54. The Commission concludes that it is competent to examine the claims submitted by the petitioner on the alleged violation of Articles 2, 8, 9, and 25 in relation to Article 1.1 of the American Convention and that these are admissible, pursuant to the requirements established under Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. 55. Likewise, the Commission concludes that the claims presented by the petitioner regarding the alleged violation of the right to compensation for a miscarriage of justice enshrined in Article 10 are inadmissible. 56. Based on the foregoing considerations of fact and law, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS DECIDES: 1. To declare the instant petition admissible with regard to Articles 2, 8, 9, and 25 of the American Convention in relation to Article 1.1 of the American Convention. 2. Convention. 3. To rule the instant petition inadmissible with respect to Article 10 of the American To notify the State and the petitioner of this decision.