6 26. The State, for its part, reports that the exhaustion of domestic remedies occurred on March 30, 1993, when the Full Chamber of the Supreme Court denied the petitioner's appeal for judicial review. 27. In regard to that matter, the Commission observes that Mr. Lagos del Campo filed all the regular appeals provided for in his country's laws, with the aim of reversing the human rights violations of which he alleges he was a victim. Thus, the Commission concludes that the requirement provided for in Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention has been met by the petitioner. 2. Filing Period 28. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 46(1) of the Convention, for a petition to be admitted, it must be lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the party alleging violation of his rights was notified of the final judgment. 29. The Commission believes it is necessary to expressly state in the record that the petitioner first sent his petition to the IACHR through the OAS office in Peru on October 14, 1993. That office sent the petition on August 5, 1998, the date on which the IACHR took cognizance of it. In this regard, in analyzing the filing period the Commission considers the date of October 14, 1993, as the date on which the petition was lodged. 30. In this case, the last judgment contained in the case file was issued on March 15, 1993, and was handed down by the Chamber of Constitutional and Social Law of the Supreme Court of Justice. 18 Notification of that decision was given on April 26, 1993. Taking into account that the petition was lodged on October 14, 1993, the Commission considers that in this case the requirement established in Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention was met. In view of the foregoing and for the purposes of analyzing the petition's admissibility, the IACHR believes that it is not necessary to analyze the outcome of the legal actions undertaken by the petitioner from July 1996 on. 3. Duplication of Proceedings and Res Judicata 31. Article 46(1)(c) establishes that a petition's admission is subject to the matter not being "pending in another international proceeding for settlement," and Article 47(d) of the Convention states that the Commission shall not admit a petition or communication that is "substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization." In the instant case, the parties have not alleged the existence of either of these inadmissibility situations, nor are they deduced from the file. 4. Characterization of the Alleged Facts 32. For the purposes of the admissibility report, the IACHR must decide at this stage of the proceedings only whether the petition relates facts which, if proved, could characterize violations of the Convention, as stipulated in Article 47(b) of the American Convention, or whether the petition is "manifestly groundless" or "obviously out of order," according to paragraph (c) of the same article. The IACHR must conduct a prima facie evaluation to determine whether the complaint establishes the grounds for an apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention, but not to establish the existence of such a violation. The examination it must perform at this time is simply a summary analysis and does not imply a prejudgment or an advance opinion on the merits of the matter. 33. It can be deduced from the information and allegations presented by the petitioner that Mr. Alfredo Lagos del Campo was dismissed from his job at the Ceper-Pirelli S.A. company for allegedly having made statements to the newspaper La Razón in which he was said to have used negative descriptions in referring to the company and to his co-workers. Mr. Lagos del Campo denied responsibility 18 See annex number 18 to the initial submission (in fine).