18 81. Consequently, the Commission concludes that the alleged victims in the instant case did exhaust the adequate and effective remedy that was available to them to restore the infringed legal situation, thus fulfilling the provisions of Article 46.1.a of the American Convention and Article 31 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission.20 2. Timeliness of the Petition before the Commission 82. 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. 83. In fact, the complainants were notified of the decision of the Third Superior Circuit Court for Labor Matters of the Judicial District of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas on September 9, 2005, the date when the decision was published upholding the ruling on appeal of groundlessness of the amparo action pursued by the petitioners. Taking into consideration that the petition was filed on March 7, 2006, the Commission finds that the petition was lodged within the time period prescribed by Article 46.1.b of the Convention. 3. Duplication and Res Judicata 84. Article 46.1.c of the Convention establishes that admission of a petition is subject to the requirement that the matter “is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement” and Article 47.d of the Convention provides that the Commission shall not admit a petition that is “substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization.” In the instant case, the parties have not alleged, nor is there anything in the case file, that indicates any of said circumstances of inadmissibility. 4. Characterization of the alleged facts 85. 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, whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or it is “obviously out of order,” according to subsection “c” of this 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. 86. Neither the American Convention nor the Commission’s Rules of Procedure require a petitioner to identify the specific rights alleged to have been violated by the State in the matter brought to the Commission, although the petitioners are free to do so. It is up to the Commission, based on the jurisprudence of the system, to determine in its admissibility reports which provisions of the relevant inter-American instruments are applicable; it may determine that those instruments were violated if the facts as alleged are proven based on sufficient evidence and information. 20 See IACHR. Report Nº 70/04 Petition 667/01. Admissibility. Jesús Manuel Naranjo Cárdenas et al (Pensioners of the Venezuelan Aviation Company VIASA) Venezuela. October 13, 2004. Available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2004sp/Venezuela.667.01.htm