8 2. Timeliness of the petition 40. The American Convention provides that for a petition to be admissible, it must be presented within six months of the date on which the party alleging violation of rights was notified of the final judgment. In the complaint under review the IACHR has determined that the exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies pursuant to Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention are applicable. In this regard, Article 32 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure states that when the exceptions to the rule requiring prior exhaustion of domestic remedies apply, the petition is to be presented within what the Commission deems to be a reasonable period. The Commission must therefore consider the date on which the alleged violation of rights occurred and the circumstances of each case. 41. In the instant case, the petition was received on February 6, 2002 and the alleged facts that are the subject of the complaint occurred in 1983. Bearing in mind that the Public Prosecution Service brought a criminal indictment against the alleged culprits in 1998 and that the criminal proceeding at the domestic level remains ongoing, specifically with regard to the prosecution of two state agents and the enforcement of the judgment on the only person so far convicted, and considering, furthermore, the alleged sequence of acts of harassment against the family members, the IACHR concludes that the petition was presented within a reasonable time and, therefore, takes the requirement contained in Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention as met. 2. Duplication of international proceedings and res judicata 42. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the subject matter of the petition is pending in another international proceeding for settlement or that it is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization. Therefore, the Commission finds that the requirements set forth in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention have been met. 3. Colorable Claim 43. The Commission considers that it is not appropriate at the admissibility stage to determine whether or not the alleged violations actually took place. For admissibility purposes, the IACHR must decide whether the facts described in the petition could characterize violations of the American Convention, as stipulated in Article 47(b) thereof. The standard by which to assess these extremes is different from the one needed to decide the merits of a petition. The Inter-American Commission must perform a prima facie evaluation and determine if the complaint provides grounds for an apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the American Convention.8 This is a summary analysis and does not imply a prejudgment or preliminary opinion on the merits of the dispute. By establishing two distinct phases of admissibility and merits, the Commission’s Rules of Procedure reflect this separation between the evaluation to be carried out by the Commission for the purpose of declaring a petition admissible and that required to establish whether a violation has taken place.9 8 See IACHR, Report No. 128/01, Case 12.367, Herrera and Vargas (“La Nación”), Costa Rica, December 3, 2001, 9 See IACHR, Report No. 31/03, Case 12.195, Mario Alberto Jara Oñate et al. (Chile), March 7, 2003. par. 50.