appeal for clemency with the President of the Republic of Guatemala on July 27, 1999. This appeal was denied on May 31, 2000, in a Government Agreement dated May 31, 2000. Consequently, the IACHR believes that the requirement set forth in Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention has been satisfied. 3. Duplication of Proceedings and Res Judicata 37. The petition dossier contains no information to indicate that this matter is pending in any other international settlement proceeding or has been previously examined by the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights. The IACHR therefore concludes that the requirement contained in Article 46(1)(c) of the American Convention has been met. D. Characterization of the Alleged Facts 38. The State claims that the proceedings that handed down the death penalty to the alleged victim entailed no violations of the right to a fair trial or the judicial guarantees enshrined in the American Convention. 39. The Commission has previously stated that this stage in the proceedings is not intended to establish whether or not a violation of the American Convention was committed.11 At the admissibility stage, the IACHR must decide whether the stated facts tend to establish a violation, as stipulated in Article 47(b) of the American Convention, and whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order,” as stated in section (c) of that same article. The level of conviction regarding those standards is different from that which applies in deciding on the merits of a complaint. The IACHR must conduct a prima facie assessment to examine whether the complaint entails an apparent or potential violation of a right protected by the Convention and not to establish the existence of such a violation. That examination is a summary analysis that does not imply prejudging the merits or offering an advance opinion on them. Thus, the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, by setting two clearly separate phases for admissibility and for merits, reflects the distinction between the evaluation that the IACHR must conduct to declare a petition admissible and the assessment necessary to establish a violation. 40. The Commission believes that the petitioners’ allegations could, prima facie,tend to establish a violation of the right to life, to a fair trial, and to judicial protection contained in Articles 4, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with State’s general obligation of respecting and ensuring those rights set forth in Article 1(1) thereof. Consequently, the Commission concludes that the instant petition meets the requirements set forth in sections (b) and (c) of Article 47. V. CONCLUSION 41. The Commission concludes that it is competent to examine this matter and that under Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, the petition is admissible with respect to Articles 1(1), 4, 8, and 25 of that instrument. Based on the foregoing considerations of fact and law, and without prejudging the merits of the case, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, DECIDES: 1. To declare this case admissible with respect to the potential violation of Articles 1(1), 4, 8, and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights. 11 See, in this regard: IACHR, Report Nº 28/01, Case 12.367, Mauricio Herrera Ulloa and Fernán Vargas Rohrmoser of the newspaper La Nación, Costa Rica, December 3, 2001. 7