47. The Commission notes that, in the instant case, the alleged victims filed the ordinary appeals established in Argentine legislation, which are acquittal in the context of the criminal action and the appeal decided by the Second Chamber of the Criminal and Correctional Court of the Mercedes Judicial Department. The alleged victims also filed extraordinary appeals. With regard to the latter, the Commission notes that the application to compel jurisdiction filed before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation is the final procedural path available to the alleged victims to challenge the decision of the lower courts, therefore constituting a final decision of the criminal action brought by Messrs. Antonio Quarracino, Humberto Romanello, and Juan B. Piriz. 48. Based on the foregoing analysis, the Commission concludes that the instant petition meets the requirement set forth in Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention. 2. Period for lodging the petition 49. In accordance with the provision of Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention, for a petition to be admitted, 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 issued at the national level. 50. In the instant case, the Commission notes that the final decision at the national level was issued on October 3, 1997 by the Supreme Court of the Nation, which denied the application to compel jurisdiction [recurso de queja]. The alleged victims were notified of said decision on October 7 of that year, so that the period for lodging the complaint with the IACHR would expire six months later, i.e., April 7, 1998. As the petition was lodged on February 12, 1998, the Commission concludes that the instant petition meets the requirement set forth in Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention. 3. International duplication of procedures and res judicata 51. Article 46(1)(c) provides that admission of petitions shall be subject to the requirement that the matter “is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement,” and Article 47(d) of the Convention stipulates that the Commission shall consider inadmissible any petition or communication 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 adduced the existence of either of these two requirements of inadmissibility, nor may they be deduced from the proceedings. 4. Characterization of the facts alleged 52. The Commission considers that it is not incumbent upon it at this stage of the proceeding to establish whether there has been violation of the American Convention. For purposes of admissibility, the IACHR must decide whether the petition states facts that tend to establish a violation of the Convention, as stipulated in Article 47(b) of the American Convention, and whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order,” in accordance with Article 47(b). 53. The standard of evaluation of these two questions is different from that required to decide on the merits of a complaint. The IACHR must make a prima facie evaluation in order to consider whether the complaint is based on an apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention and not to establish the existence of a