10 admissibility requirements, the Commission has held that its analysis must be based on the situation as it stands when the time comes for the Commission to decide the question of admissibility.3 62. The Commission observes that as of the date of this ruling on admissibility, the criminal case has been definitively closed in the domestic courts, following the February 26, 2002 ruling by the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court on the appeal seeking to have the annulment of the judgement and the cassation appeal. Accordingly, the Commission deems it unnecessary to issue any pronouncement on the unwarranted delay originally alleged by the petitioners and declares that as of this date, the internal remedies have been definitively exhausted, in accordance with Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention. 2. Deadline for filing a petition with the Commission 63. Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention provides that for a petition to be declared admissible, it must be lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the party alleging violation of his or her rights was notified of the final judgment that exhausted domestic remedies. 64. In the preceding section, the Commission established that the internal remedies were exhausted with the definitive ruling that the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court delivered on February 26, 2002. Compliance with the rule requiring exhaustion of domestic remedies occurred while the admissibility and merits of the present case were being processed. Under such circumstances, compliance with the filing period for the petition goes hand in hand with exhaustion of the domestic remedies, and the Commission therefore considers that this requirement has been met.4 3. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 65. Article 46(1)(c) of the Convention provides that admission by the Commission of a petition shall be subject to the requirement that the subject matter “is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement”, while Article 47(d) provides that the Commission shall consider inadmissible any petition or communication that “is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization.” The parties have not claimed either of these two circumstances, nor is there anything in the case file to suggest that they are present in this case. 4. Characterization of the facts alleged 66. For admissibility purposes, the Commission must decide whether the facts described in the petition would tend to establish violations of the rights enshrined in the American Convention, as required under Article 47(b), or whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of 3 IACHR. Report 2/08. Petition 506-05. José Rodríguez Dañín. Bolivia. March 6, 2008. Paragraph 57. Citing. IACHR, Report No. 20/05, Petition 714/00 (“Rafael Correa Díaz”), February 25, 2005, Peru, paragraph 32; IACHR., Report No. 25/04, Case 12.361 (“Ana Victoria Sánchez Villalobos et al."), March 11, 2004, Costa Rica, paragraph 45; IACHR, Report No. 52/00. Cases 11.830 and 12.038. (Dismissed Congressional Employees), June 15, 2001, Peru. Paragraph 21. 4 See, for example: IACHR. Report 8/10. Case 12.374. Admissibility. Jorge Enrique Patiño Palacios et al.. Paraguay. March 16, 2010. Paragraph 31; and IACHR. Report 20/05. Petition 716/00. Admissibility. Rafael Correa Díaz. Peru. February 25, 2005. Paragraph 34.