42. Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention establishes that in order for a petition to be admissible it must be lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the party alleging violation of the rights was notified of the final judgment which exhausted domestic remedies. 43. The Commission concluded that the petitioner exhausted domestic remedies on the date that the cassation appeal was denied, that is, February 7, 2006. The petition was lodged on April 25, 2006, making it apparent that the deadline was met. 3. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 44. Article 46(1)(c) of the Convention establishes that admission of a petition is subject to the requirement that the matter not be “pending in another international proceeding for settlement,” while Article 47(d) of the Convention stipulates that the Commission will 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 present case, the parties have not alleged the existence of either of these conditions of inadmissibility, nor can these be deduced from the file. 4. Description of the alleged facts 45. For the purposes of admissibility, the Commission must decide whether the petition refers to facts that could characterize a violation, as is stipulated in Article 47(b) of the American Convention, or whether the petition is “manifestly groundless or obviously out of order,” according to subparagraph (c) of said Article. The standard for judgment of these extremes is different from that required to decide on the merits of a petition. The Commission must conduct a prima facie evaluation to examine whether the complaint refers to facts that could characterize a violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention, and not whether such violations actually occurred. This review is a summary analysis that does not prejudge or advance an opinion on the merits.9 46. The Commission considers that, if proven, the facts regarding criminal sanctions for the dissemination of information 9 See IACHR, Report Nº 128/01, Case Nº 12.367, Herrera and Vargas ("La Nación"), Costa Rica, December 3, 2001, para. 50; Report N° 4/04, Petition 12.324, Rubén Luis Godoy, Argentina, February 24, 2004, para. 43 and Report Nº 29/07, Petition 712-03, Elena Tellez Blanco, Costa Rica, April 26, 2007, para. 58.