77. In conclusion, the Commission finds that it has not been disproved that the facts under complaint could characterize prima facie violations of rights protected by the Convention. Consequently, it concludes that the facts under complaint, if true, could characterize violations of rights protected by Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, both in relation to the general obligations to respect and guarantee rights and the duty to adopt domestic measures, as established in Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument, to which end the petition is admissible with regard to said facts. V. CONCLUSIONS 78. The Commission concludes that the case is admissible and that it is competent to examine the complaint submitted by the petitioners regarding the alleged violations of Articles 8 and 25 in accordance with Articles 1.1 and 2 of the Convention, according to the requirements set forth in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. 79. Based on the arguments of fact and law previously expressed and without prejudice to the merits of the matter, THE INTER-AMERICAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, DECIDES: 1. To declare the case being examined admissible, with regard to Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention pursuant to Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument. 2. To notify the State and petitioner of its decision. 3. To begin processing the merits of the issue. 4. To publish this decision and include it in the Annual Report to be submitted to the General Assembly of the OAS. Done and signed at the headquarters of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in the city of Washington, D.C., on the 24th day of July, 2008. (Signed: Paolo G. Carozza, Chairman; Luz Patricia Mejía Guerrero, First Vice Chairwoman; Felipe González, Second Vice Chairman; Sir Clare K. Roberts, Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, Florentín Meléndez and Víctor E. Abramovich, members of the Commission. 18