B. Admissibility Requirements 1. Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies 21. Article 46.1.a) of the American Convention provides that for a complaint submitted to the Commission to be admissible, it is necessary that domestic remedies be filed and exhausted, in keeping with generally recognized principles of international law. 22. In the instant case, there is no disagreement about the exhaustion of domestic remedies. The State does not allege otherwise, rather it affirms that the petitioner had access to justice and legal remedies, and that these were not in his favor. At the same time, the case file reveals that the petitioner made use of the administrative and legal remedies that were available to him. 23. The alleged victim filed a motion for reconsideration on February 13, 2003, which was ruled to be groundless. He also filed an amparo appeal with regard to the Attorney General’s Office, requesting that resolution No. 087-2003-MP-FN, of January 21, 2003, issued by the Attorney General’s Office of the Nation, be ruled inapplicable, and that he consequently be returned to the post. Said request was dismissed by the First Specialized Civil Court of Huamanga, pursuant to ruling No. 7 of April 19, 2005. This ruling was upheld, in turn, by the Civil Section of the Superior Court of Justice of Ayacucho on July 11, 2005. Lastly, on November 14, 2005, the Constitutional Court denied the appeal for constitutional protection filed by the alleged victim. 24. In conclusion, the Commission observes that the alleged victim exhausted all the domestic remedies available in its legislation. Therefore, the Commission considers that domestic remedies were exhausted in accordance with the provisions of Article 46.1.a) of the American Convention. 2. Timeliness 25. In keeping with the provisions of Article 46.1. b) of the American Convention, for a petition to be admitted by the Commission, it must be lodged within a time limit of six months from the date on which the party alleging the violation of rights was notified of the final decision. 26. In the instant case, according to information provided by the petitioner—which is not questioned by the State—Mr. Casa Nina was notified of the judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Peru regarding the appeal for constitutional protection on August 15, 2006 and he submitted his petition on February 6, 2007, thus fulfilling the requirement stipulated by Article 46.1.b) of the American Convention. 3. Duplication of Proceedings and International Res Judicata 27. There is no evidence in the case file indicating that the matter the petition addresses is subject to any other international settlement proceeding, or that it reproduces a petition that has already been reviewed by this or any other international body. Therefore, it is deemed that the requirements provided for under Articles 46.1.c) and 47.d) of the American Convention have been fulfilled. 4. Colorable Claim 28. For purposes of admissibility, the Commission must decide whether the facts laid out in the petition could tend to establish a violation, as stipulated in Article 47.b) of the American Convention, whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order” in terms of subparagraph (c) thereof. At this procedural stage, the Commission is to undertake a prima facie evaluation, not for purposes of establishing alleged violations of the American Convention, rather for examining whether the petition denounces facts that