another adequate remedy besides the process of executing the decision. The Commission concludes that the said decision of February 12, 1999, exhausted the remedies of the domestic jurisdiction in compliance with the requirement established in Article 46.1 a) 3. C. Deadline for submitting the petition 40. Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention establishes that in order for a petition to be declared admissible it must have been submitted within a period of six months from the date on which the interested party was informed of the final decision that exhausted the domestic jurisdiction. 41. According to the section on the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the process of executing the decision ended on February 12, 1999, after submission of the petition to the Commission. The Commission concluded that the domestic remedies were exhausted with that decision. In this respect, compliance with the requirement to submit the petition on a timely basis is intrinsically linked to the exhaustion of domestic remedies. D. Duplication of international procedures and res judicata 42. Article 46(1)(c) of the Convention provides that the admission of petitions is 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 not admit a petition that is substantially the reproduction of a petition or earlier communication already studied by the Commission or another international body. In the instant case, the parties have not argued the existence of either of these two inadmissibility situations, nor are they deduced from the file. E. Characterization of the alleged facts 43. For purposes of admissibility, the Commission must decide whether the petition relates facts that could characterize a violation, 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 subparagraph (c) of the same article. The standard for evaluating these points is different from that required to decide on the merits of a complaint. The Commission must perform a prima facie evaluation to examine whether the complaint provides a basis for the apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention and not to establish the existence of a violation. Such examination is a summary analysis that does not involve prejudging or opining in advance on the merits. 44. The Commission feels that should the facts alleged in the petition be true, they could characterize a violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 21 4, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, as they relate to the obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument. 3 The Commission notes that years later, a group of petitioners filed a new procedure to execute the decision in the civil jurisdiction. They obtained a decision declaring the lack of competence of the judge. Taking into account the conclusion of this paragraph, the IACHR does not take into consideration that procedure in order to determine if domestic remedies have been exhausted. 4 The Commission believes that should it be proven that the alleged failure to comply with the decision prevented the alleged victims from having an effective remedies with respect to their property rights, particularly the salaries and fringe benefits to which they were entitled by virtue of the collective agreement that governed them, the facts could characterize a violation of the right to property.