They may not interpret or apply them in a manner contrary to the precedents or jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court. As a result, in accordance with its practices,11 the Commission holds the opinion that the process initiated against the assumed victims contemplated the possibility that the Costa Rican courts would have recourse to judicial consultation on constitutionality with the Supreme Court of Justice, so that it could decide on the applicability or inapplicability of the criminal laws that the petitioners denounced as being in violation of the human rights of the victims. Article 8.1 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction offers the judicial authorities the possibility of redressing the matter domestically. The Commission believes that in this specific case, in view of the fact that the principal object of the petition is the questioning of the conviction referred to earlier, the petitioners were not required to exhaust action in regard to unconstitutionality. Therefore, they did exhaust domestic remedies pursuant to Article 46(1)(a). b. Deadline for lodging the petition 47. The six-month term stipulated in Article 46.1 (b) was complied with in this case, since the petitioners lodged the petition on March 1, 2001, after the last decision was handed down by the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on January 24, 2001. c. Duplication of procedures and res judicata 48. It appears from the case file that the petition lodged with the Inter-American Commission is not currently pending in any other international settlement proceedings, nor is it a substantial reproduction of another previous petition or communication already considered by the Commission or another international organization, as established in Articles 46(1)( c) and 47(d), respectively. d. Characterization of the alleged events 49. The State requested that the Commission reject the petition in limine on the grounds that it is “manifestly groundless.” 50. The Commission is of the view that it is not appropriate to determine whether or not there was a violation of the American Convention at this stage of the proceedings. For the purposes of admissibility, the Commission must decide if the events can be characterized as a violation, as stipulated in Article 47(b) of the American Convention, and if the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order,” pursuant to subparagraph (c) of that Article. The standard for evaluating these factual requirements is different from the requirement for deciding on the merits of a petition. The IACHR must conduct a prima facie evaluation to determine whether the petition establishes grounds for the apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention, but not to establish the existence of a violation. This determination involves a summary analysis which does not imply a prejudgment or advance opinion on the substance of the matter. The Commission’s Regulations, by establishing two clear stages, one involving admissibility and the other the substance of the petition, reflects this distinction between the evaluation the Commission must conduct for the purpose of declaring a petition admissible and that required to establish a violation. 51. The extensive arguments presented by the State on this point demonstrate in and of themselves that the petition is not “manifestly groundless,” that it is not “obviously out of order,” or that it does [not] characterize a presumed violation. On the contrary, the very response of the State deserves a more careful examination of the petition during the stage involving its merits. The IACHR considers that, prima facie, the petitioners have proven the factual requirements stipulated in Article 47(b) and (c). V. CONCLUSIONS 11 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report Nº 77/01, case 11.571, Humberto Antonio Palamara Iribarne, Chile, October 10,. 2001, paras. 33-35. 8