54. As indicated at supra para. 51, the Commission concludes that in the present case, the unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment, established as an exception in Article 46(2)(c) of the Convention, applies. Considering that the violations alleged would be continuing in the case of five of the criminal cases brought against the alleged victim, and the fact that during those cases Mrs. Andrade has actively pursued the legal mechanisms available to her to protect her rights, the Commission deems that the petition was lodged within a reasonable period of time. 55. As for the Guaglio case (Ham v. Monroy), the Commission observes that the domestic remedies were exhausted on September 11, 2006, subsequent to the date on which the petition was lodged. Compliance with the rule requiring that the petition be lodged within the proper time frame is intrinsically linked to exhaustion of local remedies. D. Duplication of proceedings and international res judicata 56. Article 46(1)(c) establishes that in order for a petition to be admitted its subject shall “not [be] pending in another international proceeding for settlement;” 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 raised the existence of either of these two grounds for inadmissibility, and they cannot be deduced from the proceedings. E. Characterization of the facts alleged 57. For admissibility purposes, the Commission must determine whether the petition states facts that could tend to characterize a violation of the Convention, as stipulated in Article 47(b) thereof, whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order,” as required under paragraph (c) of that article. The standard for evaluating these requirements is different from the standard for deciding the merits of a petition. The IACHR must conduct a prima facie evaluation to determine whether the petition establishes grounds for the apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention, but not to establish the existence of a violation. Such an evaluation is a summary analysis and does not imply prejudgment or advance an opinion on the merits. 58. The Commission considers that the facts recounted by the petitioners in connection with the alleged victim’s detention, the length of the proceedings and the alleged procedural irregularities could characterize violations of the rights recognized in Articles 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. Moreover, the Commission deems that the restriction that prevented her from leaving the country and the limitation on her exercise of her right to private property –both of which were the result of proceedings alleged to be excessively protracted- could tend to characterize violations of the rights recognized in Articles 21 and 22 of the Convention. V. CONCLUSIONS 59. Based on these considerations of fact and of law, and without prejudging the merits of the question, the Inter-American Commission concludes that the present case meets the admissibility requirements set forth in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention and, therefore, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS DECIDES: 1. To declare the petition under study admissible with respect to the rights recognized in Articles 7, 8, 21, 22 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations undertaken in Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. 2. To notify the State and the petitioners of this decision. 10