its admissibility reports which provisions of the relevant inter-American instruments are applicable and would be violated if the alleged facts are sufficiently proved. 45. The petitioners argue that the State violated the alleged victim’s rights to due process, a fair trial, the rule of law, respect for his honor and dignity, property, equal treatment, and judicial protection during the dismissal proceeding against him and because of the impossibility of obtaining a judicial review of the dismissal decision. The State argues that none of the rights protected by the Convention were violated. It says the alleged victim is dissatisfied with the unfavorable decision and is resorting to the IACHR as a fourth instance. 46. Considering the elements of fact and law presented by the parties, specifically the alleged violations committed during the dismissal and disbarment proceeding and the alleged impossibility of obtaining a comprehensive review of the decision by an organ of the judicial branch, the IACHR considers that, if proven, the alleged facts tend to establish violations of the rights protected in Articles 8, 9, and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same international instrument. 47. With respect to the petitioner’s complaint of the alleged violation of Articles 11, 21, and 24 of the American Convention, the Commission notes that the information submitted by the petitioners does not permit the IACHR to determine a possible violation of those articles, so with respect to them the petition is inadmissible. V. CONCLUSIONS 48. Based on the foregoing arguments of fact and law, and without prejudging the merits of the case, the Inter-American Commission concludes that the present case satisfies the requirements for admissibility established in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, and therefore, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS DECIDES: 1. To declare the petition under study admissible with respect to Articles 8, 9, and 25 of the American Convention in connection with the obligations established in Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument; 2. To declare the present petition inadmissible with respect to Articles 11, 21, and 24 of the American Convention; 3. To notify the parties of this decision; 4. To continue with the analysis of the merits of the case; and 5. To publish this decision and include it in the Annual Report to the OAS General Assembly. Done and signed in the city of Washington, D.C., on the 13th day of the month of April, 2016. (Signed): James L. Cavallaro, President; Francisco José Eguiguren, First Vice President; Margarette May Macaulay, Second Vice President; José de Jesús Orozco Henríquez, Paulo Vannuchi, Esmeralda E. Arosemena Bernal de Troitiño and Enrique Gil Botero, Commissioners.