to Prevent and Punish Torture, and of the rights protected in Articles 2, 3, 4, and 7 a) and b) of the Convention of Belém do Pará, without expressly alleging provisions of the American Convention. In this regard and by virtue of the principle of iura novit curia, this analysis will incorporate the applicable articles of the American Convention, in addition to the articles alleged by the petitioner over which the CIDH has jurisdiction. 68. The Commission believes that if the events related to the following are true—i) the illegal raid on the residence of the alleged victims; ii) their capture through allegedly excessive use of force, including measures affecting children; iii) the subsequent beatings and mistreatment to which they allege they were subject at the Judicial Technical Police for the purpose of self-incrimination; iv) the situation of solitary confinement in which they were apparently held for three months; and v) the purported procedural irregularities and the alleged obstruction in terms of being able to have a defender of their own choosing—these could constitute a violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 5, 7, 8, 11, 19, and 25 of the American Convention. 69. Likewise, if it is proved that Mr. Genaro Ahuacho Luna (Walter Herrera Flores) died as a result of the blows he received at the time of his arrest and while he was at installations of the Judicial Technical Police, such events could constitute a violation of the right protected in Article 4 of the American Convention. 70. The Commission also believes that if it is true that there was a failure to verify, through a diligent investigation, the necessity and proportionality of the use of force, as well as a failure to investigate the alleged acts of torture and other inhumane acts to which the alleged victims were purportedly subject at police stations, these could characterize a violation of the rights protected in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, as well as the provisions of Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, taking into account the other articles of that Convention that were alleged by the petitioner. 71. The Commission considers that if is proved that the police agents committed unnecessary and disproportionate acts of violence against the women at the time of the arrest and subsequently at the Judicial Technical Police, as well as different types of sexual aggression, such acts could characterize a violation of Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. V. CONCLUSIONS 72. By virtue of the above facts and laws, and without prejudging the merits of the matter, the Inter-American Commission concludes that this case satisfies the admissibility requirements stated in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, and therefore THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS DECIDES: 1. To find the petition under study to be admissible with respect to the rights protected in Articles 4, 5, 7, 11, 19, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the obligations established in Article 1.1; as well as the right enshrined in Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, and the provisions of Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. 2. To notify the State and the petitioner of this decision. 3. To begin proceedings on the merits of the case. 12