6 basically involve questions of property and, therefore, are not effective in this case 4. As for the constitutional action for noncompliance, it is clear that this action, having been created in the Constitution that came into force in October 2009, was established over five and a half years after the reported events began. 37. The Commission therefore concludes that in this case the exceptions to the exhaustion of domestic remedies rule, contained in Articles 46.2, sections(a) and (b) of the American Convention, do apply. C. Deadline for presentation of the petition 38. The American Convention provides that, in order for a petition to be admitted by the Commission, it must have been presented within six months from the date on which the allegedly injured party was notified of the final decision. In this case, the IACHR has applied the exceptions to the exhaustion of domestic remedies rule under Article 46.2, (a) and (b), of the Convention. Article 32 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission provides that, when such exceptions apply, the petition must have been presented within what the Commission deems a reasonable period of time. For that purpose the Commission must consider the date on which the alleged violation of rights occurred and the particular circumstances of the case. 39. In this case, the petition was received on March 1, 2007. The events described in the complaint began in early January 2004 and, as they involve an alleged disappearance, their effects extend to the present. In view of the nature of this case, therefore, and of the fact that the remedies available under domestic law to correct the situation reported have proven neither appropriate nor effective, the Commission deems the petition to have been presented within a reasonable period of time. D. Duplication of procedures and international res judicata 40. The case file shows no evidence that the subject of the petition is pending in another international proceeding for settlement or that it duplicates one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization. The Commission finds therefore that the requirements set forth in Articles 46.1.c and 47.d of the Convention have been met. E. Nature of the allegations 41. For purposes of admissibility, the Commission must decide whether the petition describes events that could constitute a violation of rights as stipulated in Article 47.b of the American Convention; or, conversely, is "manifestly groundless" or "out of order" according to section (c) of that article. The standard for assessing those requirements is different from the one used to rule on the merits of a petition. The Commission must make a prima facie assessment as to whether the petition includes the basis for the possible or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention; it need not establish that rights were indeed violated. This determination constitutes a summary examination that does not prejudge or rule upon the merits 5. 42. In view of the arguments of fact and of law presented by the parties, and of the nature of the matter placed before it, the IACHR finds that the events alleged by the petitioners could constitute possible violations of the rights protected in Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, to the detriment of Mr. Luis E. Guachalá Chimbó, in keeping with Articles 1.1 and 2 of that convention, as well as of Articles 5, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, to the detriment of his mother, Ms. Zoila Rosario Guachalá Jarro. 4 IACHR, Report No. 136/09, P-321-05, Admissibility, María Inés Chinchilla Sandoval, Guatemala, November 13, 2009, para. 47. 5 See, among other precedents: IACHR, Report No. 12/10, Case 12,106, Admissibility, Enrique Hermann Pfister Frías and Lucrecia Pfister Frías, Argentina, March 16, 2010, para. 46; IACHR, Report No. 10/10, Petition No. 214-08, Admissibility, Koempai et al., Suriname, March 16, 2010, para. 43.