file dates from November 4, 2013; and that by that time, many of the procedures requested by the Prosecutor’s Office had not been complied with. 24. As a result, the Commission concludes that in this case, the exception to the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies is applicable, under Article 46.2 (c) of the American Convention and Article 31.2 (c) of the Rules. 2. Timeliness of the petition 25. Under Articles 46.1.b of the American Convention and 32.1 of the Rules, for a petition to be declared admissible by the Commission, it must be lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the alleged victim was notified of the final judgment. Concerning the complaint under assessment, the IACHR establishes that the exception to the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies is applicable, under Article 46.2 (c) of the American Convention and Article 31.2 (c) of the Rules. In this regard, under Article 46.2 of the Convention and Article 32.2 of the Rules, in those cases where exceptions to the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies are applicable, the petition shall be presented within a reasonable term, as determined by the Commission. Therefore, the Commission shall consider the date of the alleged violations of rights and the circumstances of each case. 26. In the case under assessment, the IACHR has established that the exception to the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies is applicable, under Article 46.2 (c) of the American Convention and Article 31.2 (c) of the Rules. The petition to the IACHR was received on December 23, 2012, and the alleged events that are the subject matter of the complaint took place on June 29, 2009. The investigation is still at the preliminary stage and its effects, in terms of the alleged lack of judicial protection, persist to this date. Consequently, in view of the context and the characteristics of the case, the Commission believes that the admissibility requirement of timeliness of the petition has been met. 3. Duplication of proceedings and International res judicata 27. From the case file, there is nothing to indicate that the subject matter of the petition is pending in other international proceedings for settlement or that it duplicates a petition already examined by this or by another international body. Therefore, inadmissibility requirements set forth in Articles 46.1 (c) and 47 (d) of the Convention and Articles 33.1 (a) and 33.1 (b) of the Rules do not apply. 4. Colorable claim 28. The Commission must decide if the facts alleged tend to establish a violation of protected rights, under Articles 47 (b) of the American Convention and 34 (a) of the Rules of Procedure, or if the petition is ‘manifestly groundless’ or ‘obviously out of order,’ under Articles 47 (c) of the American Convention and 34 (b) of the Rules. The assessment criteria for admissibility differs from that used for the assessment of the merits of the petition, since the Commission only undertakes a prima facie assessment to determine whether the petitioners have established the apparent or possible violation of a right protected by the American Convention on Human Rights. It is a general analysis not involving a prejudgment of, or issuance of a preliminary opinion on the merits of the matter. 29. Moreover, the corresponding legal instruments do not require a petitioner to identify the specific rights allegedly violated by the State in the matter brought before the Commission, although petitioners may do so. It is for the Commission, based on the system's jurisprudence, to determine in its admissibility report which provisions of the relevant Inter-American instruments are applicable and could be found to have been violated if the alleged facts are proven by sufficient elements. 30. The petitioners argue that the state authorities are responsible for the death of Vicky Hernández Castillo, since the events took place during the curfew, a context of high militarization in Honduras. They add that no procedures aimed at establishing the facts were put into action, and that the few procedures that were carried out do not indicate that there is a coherent plan of investigation. Finally, they stress that the 5