39. The case file has no information that would indicate that the petition submitted to the Inter-American Commission is pending in another international proceeding for settlement, nor that it is substantially the same as one previously studied by the IACHR or another international organization, as established in Articles 46.1.c. and 47.d. of the American Convention, respectively. 4. Nature of the allegations 40. Article 47.b. of the American Convention provides that the InterAmerican Commission shall consider inadmissible any petition or communication submitted if "it does not state facts that tend to establish a violation of the rights guaranteed by this Convention." The criterion for evaluating these requirements differs from that used to reach a decision on the merits of a petition. The IACHR makes a prima facie evaluation to see if the petition has the basis of a possible or potential violation of a right guaranteed in the American Convention, and not to establish the actual existence of a violation of rights. In other words, this is a preliminary analysis that does not attempt to prejudge the merits of the case. 41. The petitioners allege that the State has violated the right to property of the Xucuru indigenous people because of the delay in demarcation of their ancestral land and the ineffectiveness of judicial protection to guarantee their right to property. 42. On this aspect, the Inter-American Commission notes that if the petitioners’ allegations are proved with respect to the allegedly unwarranted delay in the process of demarcation of the Xucuru ancestral land and the ineffectiveness of judicial protection to guarantee their right to property, as well as the alleged lack of effective judicial remedies that are accessible to the indigenous people, they could constitute violations of Articles 8, 21, and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with the general obligations to respect the rights and adopt provisions in domestic law to ensure the exercise of the rights established in that international treaty, as stipulated in Articles 1.1 and 2 . 43. The Inter-American Commission notes that the demarcation process at issue started in 1989, when Brazil had not yet ratified the American Convention; therefore, in application of the iura novit curia principle, the IACHR considers that the facts described supra, which occurred prior to September 25, 1992, could constitute violations of 14