8 and the petition was lodged on May 26, 2005, under the specific circumstances that the petitioner could not have exhausted additional remedies to challenge his removal from the post. Therefore, in view of the context and characteristics of the instant case, the Commission believes that the petition was submitted within a reasonable period of time, and this requirement for admissibility has been met. 3. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 36. The petition’s file contains no information that could lead to a determination that the instant matter is pending in another international proceeding or has been previously decided by the Commission or any other international organ. Therefore, the requirements of Articles 46.1.c and 47.d of the Convention have been satisfied. 4. Characterization of the alleged facts 37. When determining admissibility, the Commission must decide whether the petition presents facts that could tend to characterize a violation, as provided in Article 47.b of the American Convention, and whether the petition is “manifestly groundless or obviously out of order,” according to paragraph c) of the same article. In this stage of the proceeding the Commission must perform a prima facie evaluation to examine whether the complaint provides the grounds for an apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention and not to establish the existence of a violation. Such examination does not imply prejudgment or an advance opinion regarding the merits of the case.7 38. Bearing in mind the importance of the stability of judges for ensuring the independence and impartiality of the judicial branch in a democratic society,8 in this case the Commission considers that the allegations in the petition that Mr. Aguinaga was removed from his position as member of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal by an allegedly arbitrary decision adopted in a proceeding that was not authorized by law, without specific reasons and without having been given adequate guarantees, such as the right to be heard and defend himself, and the alleged lack of an effective remedy to challenge the dismissal decision could tend to characterize a violation of the rights established in Articles 8, 9, and 25 of the American Convention. The Commission therefore decides to declare said articles admissible in order to analyze their possible violation in the merits stage of this case. 39. Finally, the Commission considers that the petitioner has not presented arguments that tend to characterize a violation of the right to privacy, the right to participate in government, and the right to equal protection established respectively in Articles 11, 23, and 24 of the American Convention. V. CONCLUSIONS 40. The Commission concludes that it is competent to examine the complaints submitted by the petitioner regarding the alleged violation of Articles 8, 9, and 25, in connection with Article 1 of the Convention, and that these are admissible in accordance with the requirements stipulated in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. On the other hand, it concludes that the facts alleged by the petitioner, if true, would not constitute possible violations of Articles 11, 23, or 24 of the American Convention. 7 See IACHR, Report N° 21/04, Petition 12.190, José Luís Tapia González at al, (Chile), February 24, 2004, para. 33. 8 I-A Court, Case of the Constitutional Court. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71.