D. Characterization of the facts alleged 30. The facts alleged as to the procedure by which the justices of the Constitutional Court were removed from the bench, if proved, could tend to establish violations of Articles 8, 9 and 25, in combination with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention. 31. At this stage of the proceeding it is not up to the Commission to decide whether the alleged violations of the American Convention actually occurred. For admissibility purposes, the Commission need only decide whether the facts alleged, if proved, could tend to establish a violation of the rights guaranteed by the Convention, as stipulated in Article 47(b) of the American Convention, and whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order,” as provided in subparagraph (c) of that article. The standard for assessing admissibility is different from the standard for assessing the merits of a complaint. The assessment the Commission makes at this stage is simply a summary analysis and does not imply any prejudgment or advance any opinion on the merits of the case. By establishing two separate phases –one for admissibility and the other for merits, the Commission’s own Rules of Procedure reflect the distinction between the assessment that must be done to declare a petition admissible and the one required to establish whether State responsibility has been engaged. 32. The petitioners allege that their removal from the bench is a violation of a number of provisions of the American Convention, including those guaranteeing due process and effective judicial protection. The facts alleged, which include the removal of all justices on Ecuador’s Constitutional Court without giving them a hearing and by a procedure not provided for under the Constitution of that country, if true, would constitute violations of the rights protected under Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. The petitioners also allege that the procedure by which they were removed from the bench is not in Ecuador’s legal system and that the grounds for their removal are not in the law. 33. With respect to the application of Article 9 of the American Convention, the Inter-American Court has said: It is desirable to analyze whether Article 9 of the Convention is applicable to the administrative punitive action, in addition to it’s being evidently applicable in the penal realm. The terms used in such precept seem to refer exclusively to the latter. However, it is appropriate to take into account that administrative sanctions, as well as penal sanctions, constitute an expression of the State’s punitive power and that, on occasions, the nature of the former is similar to that of the latter. Both, the former and the latter, imply reduction, deprivation or alteration of the rights of individuals, as a consequence of unlawful conduct. Therefore, in a democratic system it is necessary to intensify precautions in order for such measures to be adopted with absolute respect for the basic rights of individuals, and subject to a careful verification of whether or not there was unlawful conduct. Likewise, and for the sake of legal security, it is indispensable for the punitive rule, whether of a penal or an administrative nature, to exist and to be known or to offer the possibility to be known, before the action or omission that violate it and for which punishment is intended, occurs. The definition of an act as an unlawful act, and the determination of its legal effects must precede the conduct of the subject being regarded as a violator. Otherwise, individuals would not be able to orient their behavior according to a valid and true legal order within which social reproach and its consequences were expressed. These are the foundations of the principles of legality and unfavorable nonretroactivity of a punitive rule.11 34. The Inter-American Commission considers that if the petitioenrs´allegations regarding Article 9 were proven in the merits stage, there could be a violation. Also, it considers that all 11 I/A Court H.R., Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72. para. 106; and Case of Ricardo Canese. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111. paras. 176 y 177. 7