13 exhausted and rules that the petition under consideration does meet the requirements prescribed in Article 46 of the Convention. 2. Timeliness of the Petition 57. Pursuant to Article 46.1.b of the American Convention, in order for a petition to be admitted, it must be lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the alleged victim was notified of the final judgment exhausting domestic remedies. In the instant case, the IACHR received the petition regarding the alleged violation of the rights of Mrs. Digna Ochoa on November 2, 1999, after the alleged acts of assault were perpetrated against her and prior to her death. The Commission notes that during the processing of admissibility, both the State and the petitioners have been providing information on developments in the investigations. Consequently, the Commission deems that the requirement prescribed in Article 46.1.b of the Convention pertaining to the deadline for submission has been met. 3. Duplication and Res Judicata in International Proceedings Nothing in the case file indicates that the subject of the petition is pending decision in another international settlement proceeding, or that it duplicates a petition already examined by this or any other international body. Therefore, the requirements of Articles 46.1.c and 47.d have been met. 58. 4. Colorable Claim For the purposes of admissibility, the Commission must decide whether the petition states facts that could tend to establish a violation, as provided in Article 47.b of the American Convention, and whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order,” in accordance with paragraph (c) of the same Article. The standard for evaluating these requirements is different from the one used to judge the merits of a complaint. The IACHR must undertake a prima facie evaluation to determine whether the complaint demonstrates an apparent or potential violation of a right protected by the American Convention, but not whether such a violation occurred. Such an evaluation is a summary review that does not prejudice or advance an opinion on the merits. 59. 60. Neither the American Convention nor the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights requires petitioners to identify the specific rights allegedly violated by the State in matters submitted to the Commission, even though the petitioners may do so. However, it is the duty of the Commission, in following the system of legal precedents, to determine in its admissibility reports, what provision of relevant Inter-American instruments is applicable and could be concluded to have been violated, should the alleged facts be proven by means of sufficient evidence and legal argument. In this regard, the IACHR notes that the investigation into the death of Mrs. Digna Ochoa y Plácido has been open for more than 10 years. The petitioners allege that during the investigation several irregularities were committed that have impeded a determination of the truth and affected the relatives of Mrs. Ochoa. These irregularities include the failure to investigate the threats and assaults prior to the death of Mrs. Ochoa, irregularities at the scene of the crime and in the investigation of logical leads that emerged in the investigation. The Commission notes as well that the petitioners claim that the evidence offered by them during the investigation was repeatedly rejected; that the expert opinions appearing in the case file are contradictory and that the investigating authority acted with partiality in the 61.