45. The invocation of exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies set forth in Article 46(2) of the Convention is closely linked to the determination of possible violations of certain rights set forth in the Convention, such as the guarantee of access to justice. However, Article 46(2), by its nature and purpose, is a provision whose content is autonomous vis-a-vis the substantive provisions of the Convention. Therefore, the determination of whether exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies are applicable to the case in question must be carried out prior to and apart from the analysis on the merits of the matter, as it depends on a standard of examination that is different from the one used to determine a possible violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. It should be noted that the causes and affects preventing the exhaustion of domestic remedies will be analyzed in the report adopted by the Commission on the merits of the dispute in order to establish whether violations of the American Convention have taken place. 2. Deadline for submitting the petition 46. Articles 46(1)(b) of the American Convention and 32(1) of the Rules of Procedure establish that for a petition to be admissible by the Commission, it must be 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. In the claim under analysis, the IACHR has established that the exception to the exhaustion of domestic remedies applies, pursuant to Article 46(2)(a) and 46(2)(b) of the American Convention and 31(2)(a) and 31(2)(b) of the Rules of Procedure. In this regard, Article 46(2) of the Convention and 32(2) of the Rules of Procedure establish that in the cases in which the exceptions to the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies are applicable, the petition shall be presented within a reasonable period of time, as determined by the Commission. For this purpose, the Commission shall consider the date on which the alleged violation of rights occurred and the circumstances of each case. 47. The petition before the IACHR was received on August 19, 2011, and the alleged facts material to the claim began on February 25, 1985, with the granting of a provisional title to members of the Agua Caliente Community. Those facts continued with the alleged compliance with requirements to receive official recognition of the right to ownership of the land on July 18, 2002, the effects of which extend to the present day. Therefore, in view of the context and the characteristics of this case, the Commission finds that the petition was presented within a reasonable period of time and that the admissibility requirement on the submission deadline is satisfied. 3. Duplication of international proceedings and international res judicata 48. The case file does not indicate that the issue addressed in the petition is pending before any other international proceeding, nor that it repeats a petition that has already been heard by this or any other international body. Accordingly, the grounds for inadmissibility established in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention and 33(1) and 33(1)(b) of the Rules of Procedure are not applicable. 4. Characterization of the facts alleged 49. For the purposes of admissibility, the Commission must decide if the facts alleged represent a violation of rights as stipulated in Articles 47(b) of the American Convention and 34(a) of the Rules of Procedure, or if the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order,” pursuant to Articles 47(c) of the American Convention and 34(b) of the Rules of Procedure. The criteria for analyzing admissibility differs from the criteria used to analyze the merits of the petition, as the Commission only performs a prima facie analysis to determine if petitioners establish that the violation of rights guaranteed by the American Convention on Human Rights is apparent or possible. This is a summary analysis that does not involve prejudging or issuing a preliminary opinion on the merits of the matter. 50. Likewise, the applicable legal instruments do not require the petitioner to identify the specific rights that the State is allegedly violating in the case submitted to the Commission, although the petitioners may do so. It falls to the Commission, on the basis of the system’s case law, to decide in its admissibility reports which provision of the relevant inter-American instruments is applicable and whose violation could be established if the allegations are proven on the basis of sufficient evidence. 8