Commission received any information indicating the existence of any such situation, and it does not consider it to reproduce the petition or communication in any other matter previously examined by it, accordingly, it considers that the requirements of Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention have been satisfied. 4. Characterization of the facts alleged 40. In the instant case, the Commission considers that this is not the procedural phase for deciding whether the alleged violations of the rights of the alleged victim to life, freedom of expression, a fair trial, and judicial protection occurred. For the purposes of admissibility, the IACHR at this time need only determine whether facts are stated which, if proven, tend to establish violations of the Convention, as stipulated by Article 47(b) of the American Convention, and whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order,” per Article 47(c). 41. The standard of appreciation of these rules is different from that required to make a decision on the merits of a complaint. The IACHR must perform a prima facie evaluation to determine whether the complaint lays the foundation for the apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention, but not to establish the existence of such a violation. The examination that must be done at this time is simply a summary analysis that does not imply any prejudgment or initial opinion on the merits. The Commission’s Rules of Procedure, on establishing two clear stages of admissibility and merits, reflects this distinction between the evaluation that the Commission must make for the purposes of declaring a petition admissible and that required for establishing a violation. 42. The Commission notes that a judgment of acquittal per se does not constitute a violation of any of the rights provided for in the American Convention. Nonetheless, the Commission observes that the failure to investigate on the part of the Colombian State entails a situation of impunity that could tend to establish a violation of Articles 8 and 25, and a breach of the obligation to ensure set forth at Article 1(1). 43. In the opinion of the Commission the arguments presented by the State require, to be resolved, an analysis on the merits. Similarly, the Commission considers that the petitioner’s allegations regarding the supposed violation of the rights to life, freedom of expression, and judicial protection, if proven, may tend to establish a violation of the rights guaranteed by Articles 4, 8, 13, and 25 of the American Convention in relation to its Article 1(1). 10