6 29. Article 46()1)(b) of the Convention establishes that for a petition to be declared admissible, it must be been 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 that exhausted the domestic remedies. This provision is not applicable when the Commission finds that one or more of the exceptions to the exhaustion of domestic remedies established in Article 46.2 of the Convention applies. In such cases, the Commission must determine whether the petition was presented within a reasonable period of time, pursuant to el Article 32 of its Rules of Procedure. 30. As indicated in paragraph 27 above, the Commission concluded that in the instant case, pursuant to el Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention, there has been an unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment. Taking into consideration the fact that the present petition was lodged at a time when amnesty laws precluded the investigation and punishment of crimes committed by Peruvian State agents between May 1980 and June 1995, as well as the ongoing nature of the crime of forced disappearance and the alleged denial of justice in the proceedings currently under way, the IACHR considers that the requirement established in Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention and Article 32 of its Rules of Procedure has been met. D. International duplication of proceedings and res judicata 31. Article 46(1)(c) of the Convention establishes that admission of petitions is subject to the requirement that the subject of the petition “is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement:, while Article 47(d) of the Convention stipulates that the Commission shall consider inadmissible any petition or communication 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 contended that either of those two circumstances apply, nor can they be deduced from the file. E. Characterization of the alleged facts 32. For admissibility purposes, the Commission must, pursuant to Article 47.b) of the American Convention decide whether the petition describes facts that, if shown to be true, would characterize a violation of the Convention and whether, pursuant to Article 47.c), the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order.” The standard for assessing these factors differs from that required to decide on the merits of a complaint. The Commission must conduct a prima facie evaluation to see whether the complaint substantiates an apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention, not to establish the existence of a violation. This evaluation is a summary analysis that does not imply a prejudgment or advance opinion on the merits. 33. Neither the American Convention nor the IACHR Rules of Procedure 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. 34. In light of the elements presented at the admissibility stage, the IACHR considers that the alleged forced disappearance of Mr. Santiago Antezana Cueto and the supposed impunity surrounding these facts could constitute violations of the rights established en Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the obligations established in Article 1(1) of said instrument, as well as of the rights established in Article I of the CISDFP; all to the detriment of Santiago Antezana Cueto. Furthermore, the Commission considers that these facts could constitute violation of the rights established in Articles 5, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the obligations established in Article 1(1) of said instrument, to the detriment of the family members of Santiago Antezana Cueto. 35. With respect to the alleged acts of torture against Mr. Antezana Cueto during his detention at the Acobamba Counter-Insurgency Base and the alleged absence of an investigation or