49. In conclusion, the Commission finds that nonetheless the facts denounced could still characterize, prima facie, violations to rights protected by the Convention. It therefore concludes that the events denounced, if proven, could constitute violations to the rights protected in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, both with regard to the general obligation to respect and guarantee rights and the duty to undertake domestic measures pursuant to Articles 1.1 and 2 of that instrument, and hence the petition in that regard is admissible. V. CONCLUSIONS 50. The Commission concludes that the case is admissible and that it is competent to examine the complaint lodged by the petitioners regarding the alleged violations of Articles 8 and 25 in accordance with Articles 1.1 and 2 of the Convention, in keeping with the requirements set forth in Articles 46 and 47 of the Convention. 51. On the basis of the factual and legal arguments set forth above, and without prejudice to the merits of the case, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, DECIDES: 1. To declare admissible the petition under consideration, in relation to Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in keeping with Articles 1.1 and 2 of the Convention. 2. To notify the State and the petitioners of this decision. 3. To begin procedures on the merits of the case. 4. To publish this decision and include it in the Annual Report to be submitted to the OAS General Assembly. Done and signed in the city of Washington, D.C., on the 24th day of the month 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. 11