36. Based upon these considerations, without prejudice to the merits of the case, the Commission considers that the requirements of Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention and Article 31(1) of the Rules of Procedure have been met. 2. Deadline for submission of the petition to the Commission 37. Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention stipulates that admission of a petition requires “that the petition or communication is lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the party alleging violation of his rights was notified of the final judgment.” 38. The instant petition was lodged with the Commission on December 29, 2006, less than six months after the Caribbean Court of Justice’s decision dismissing the request for special leave for appeal on December 4th, 2006. Therefore, the petition meets the requirements with regard to timeliness established in Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention. 3. Duplication of proceedings 39. Article 46(1)(c) of the Convention provides that admissibility of a petition by the Commission requires that the subject of the petition or communication is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement. Article 47(d) of the Convention also stipulates that the Commission shall declare inadmissible any petition that is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization. 40. From the statements of the Petitioner and the documents in the file, it does not appear that the petition is pending in any other international proceeding or forum, or that it is substantially the same as any previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization. The Commission therefore considers that in the instant case, the requirements for admissibility in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention have been met. 4. Colorable Claim 41. For purposes of admissibility, the Commission is required to determine whether the facts stated in the petition tend to establish a violation of rights set forth in the American Convention, as provided for under Article 47(b), or whether the petition must be dismissed as “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order” under Article 47(c). Article 27 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure mandates that petitions state facts “regarding alleged violations enshrined in the American Convention on Human Rights and other applicable instruments.” In addition, Article 34(a) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure requires the Commission to declare a petition inadmissible when it does not state facts that tend to establish a violation of the rights referred to in Article 27 of the Rules. 42. The standard by which to assess the admissibility requirements is distinct from that applied when deciding upon the merits of a petition. The Commission must undertake a prima facie evaluation, not for the purpose of establishing the existence of a violation, but rather to examine whether the petition states facts that tend to establish a potential or apparent violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention. That examination is a summary analysis that does not imply any prejudgment or advance opinion on the merits of the petition. By establishing two clearly separate phases–one for admissibility and the other one for the merits–the Commission’s own Rules of Procedure reflect the distinction between the evaluation the Commission must make to declare a petition admissible, and the evaluation required to establish a violation. 43. The petition alleges violations of Article 8 of the American Convention, the particulars which are summarized above at part III(A). The State has failed to provide any observations or information on the violations alleged by Mr. Cadogan. The Commission wishes to recall that pursuant to Article 46(1) of the Convention and Article 28 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, a petition need only present the facts or situation that lay the foundation for a 7