relevant, in any report on the merits adopted by the Commission to establish whether they do, in fact, constitute violations of the American Convention. C. Timeliness of the petition 49. According to Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention, for a petition to be admitted it must be submitted within six months of the date on which the petitioner was notified of the final decision in the domestic jurisdiction. Nonetheless, as provided in Article 32(2) of the IACHR’s Rules of Procedure, in those cases in which the exceptions to prior exhaustion rule apply, the petition must be submitted within a time Commission considers reasonable. To this end, the Commission should consider the date of the alleged violation of rights and the circumstances of each case. 14 50. In the petition under study, the IACHR considers that the exception to the prior exhaustion requirement provided for at Article 46(2)(a) of the American Convention applies. Mindful of the date on which the dispute that led to this petition began, the time that has transpired since the signing of the agreement to which the State is one of the signatories, and the lack of progress in resolving the conflict alleged, the IAHCR concludes that the petition, submitted on October 29, 2003, was submitted in a reasonable time, and, therefore, it considers that the requirement established at Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention has been satisfied. D. Duplication of procedures and international res judicata 51. In order for a petition to be admissible, the American Convention requires, at Article 46(1)(c), "that the subject of the petition or communication is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement,” and at Article 47(d) that it not reproduce the content of a petition already examined by this or any other international organization. 52. In this respect, the petitioner indicated that the petition under examination was not submitted to any other international organization, and no evidence to the contrary appears in the record. Therefore, the IACHR concludes that the requirement established at Article 46(1)(c) of the Convention has been met. E. Characterization of the alleged facts 53. For purposes of admissibility, the Commission has to determine whether the facts alleged tend to establish a violation of rights enshrined in the American Convention, as required by Article 47(b), or whether the petition should be dismissed as “manifestly groundless” or obviously out of order, as per Article 47(c). The standard by which these requirements are assessed is different from the one needed to decide upon the merits of a petition; the Commission must perform a prima facie evaluation to determine whether the petition establishes the grounds for finding a possible or potential violation of a right protected by the Convention, but not to establish the existence of a violation of rights. This determination constitutes a primary analysis that does not imply any prejudging on the merits of the dispute. 54. The Commission will consider in the merits stage whether there exists or not a violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 21 and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1 and 2 of the same instrument, taking into consideration the special relation between the indigenous communities with their ancestral lands, recognized both by the IACHR and the Inter-American Court 15. Therefore, it concludes that the requirement established in Article 47(b) of the Convention has been satisfied. 14 IACHR, Report No. 15/09 (Admissibility) Petition 1-06, Massacre and Forced Displacement in Montes de María, Colombia, March 19, 2009, para. 62 15 Is this regard, consider Article 21 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in light of the provisions: I/A Court H.R., The Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua Case. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay Case. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay Case. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname Case. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172; IACHR, Report N° 75/02, Mary y Carrie Dann (United States), December 27, 8