72. It should also be noted that invocation of the exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies envisaged in Article 46(2) of the Convention is closely linked to the determination of possible violations of some rights enshrined in that Convention, such as guarantees of access to the justice system. However, Article 46(2), by its nature and purpose, stands apart from the substantive rules of the Convention. Therefore, determining whether the exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies envisaged in that rule are applicable to the case in question is a procedure that must be prior to and separate from the analysis of the merits of the case, as it depends on a different standard of judgment than that used to determine violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. It should be explained that the effects that prevented exhaustion of domestic remedies in this case will be analyzed, as relevant, in the report adopted by the Commission on the merits of the controversy, to determine whether they effectively constitute violations of the American Convention. 2. Deadline for presentation of the petition 73. As stated in Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention, petitions must be lodged by the deadline for admission, namely within a period of six months from the date on which the party filing was notified of the final judgment adopted within the internal jurisdiction. 74. The petition in question complies with the provisions of Article 32(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR, which establishes that “in those cases in which the exceptions to the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies are applicable, the petition shall be presented within a reasonable period of time […].” The IACHR shall consider the requirement for presenting the petition within a reasonable period of time to be fulfilled taking into account the date on which the alleged violations occurred. 3. Duplication of procedures and res judicata 75. There is no indication in this case that the subject of the petition is pending in another international proceeding, or that it reproduces a petition that has already been examined by another international agency. Therefore, the requirements established in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention must be considered satisfied. 4. Characterization of the alleged facts 76. For purposes of admissibility, the Commission must decide whether the facts may constitute a violation of rights as described 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 that Article. 77. The criterion applicable to assessing compliance with these requirements differs from the one applied to determine the grounds for the petition; the IACHR must conduct aprima facie assessment to establish whether the petition is based on a clear or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention, but not to determine the existence of a human rights violation. This determination involves a brief review that does not imply any prejudgment of the merits of the case. By establishing two stages—one for admissibility and the other for the merits—the Commission’s Rules of Procedure reflect this distinction. 78. In that respect, the Commission concludes, for the purposes of admissibility, that the petitioners have filed reports which, if proven true, would tend to constitute violations of the rights protected under the American Convention in Articles 1, 2, 5, 8, 13, and 25. Similarly, based on the petition, the Commission finds that the alleged report does not fall within the purview of Article 47(b) and (c) and therefore meets the requirements of the American Convention. V. FINDINGS 14