in which the exceptions to prior exhaustion of domestic resources are applicable, the petition must be presented within a reasonable period of time, to be determined by the Commission. For such purpose, the Commission must consider the date on which the alleged violation of rights occurred and the circumstances of each case. 36. In the case under consideration, the IACHR has established the applicability of the exception to exhaustion of domestic remedies provided in Article 46(2)(a) of the American Convention and Article 31(2)(a) of the Rules of Procedure. The petition before the IACHR was received on November 5, 2002, and notification was made on May 20, 2002, of the Constitutional Court judgment of March 6, 2002 ending the tutela action filed by the alleged victim, which remains in effect. Furthermore, the IACHR notes that in 2007, 2011, and 2015, the petitioner lodged three actions for review with the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court, unsuccessfully requesting review of his conviction in sole instance. Therefore, in light of the context and characteristics of this case, the Commission deems the petition to have been presented within a reasonable period and the admissibility requirement of timely presentation to have been met. 37. Without prejudice to the above, the Commission notes that in the response received on December 24, 2013, the State indicates that the petition was presented out of time since the Constitutional Court judgment was issued on March 6, 2002, and the petition was presented on November 5, 2002, approximately eight months after the final judicial decision. In additional observations received on July 18, 2016, the State indicates that the instant petition was filed on January 18, 2008, after what was in its view a period of six years, which should be considered to constitute breach of the requirement established in the Convention. On this point, the alleged victim states that notification of the March 6, 2002 judgment was made on May 20, 2002, and he attaches a certificate to that effect issued by the Disciplinary Division of the Sectional Council of the Judiciary of Cundinamarca. In this regard, the IACHR reiterates that the petition was lodged on November 5, 2002, and its determination that the case was submitted within a reasonable period is based on that date. 3. Duplication of proceedings and international res judicata 38. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the subject matter of the petition is pending in another international proceeding for settlement, or is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization. The grounds for inadmissibility established in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention and Article 33(1)(a)and 33(1)(b) of the Rules of Procedure therefore do not apply. 4. Characterization of the alleged facts 39. For the purposes of admissibility, the Commission must decide whether the alleged facts might constitute a violation of rights pursuant to Article 47(b) of the American Convention and Article 34 of the Rules of Procedure, or whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order,” pursuant to Article 47(c) of the American Convention and Article 34(b) of the Rules of Procedure. The criteria for evaluating admissibility differ from those applied to rule on the merits of a petition, since the Commission only conducts a prima facie assessment to determine whether the petition establishes an apparent or potential violation of a right protected by the American Convention. This examination is a summary analysis that neither prejudges nor offers a preliminary opinion on the merits of the case. 40. Furthermore, the relevant legal instruments do not require the petitioners to identify the specific rights allegedly violated by the State in a case submitted to the Commission, although the petitioners may do so. It is up to the Commission to determine in its admissibility reports, on the basis of the System’s case law, which provisions of the relevant inter-American instruments apply and can be shown to have been violated if the alleged facts are proven by adequate evidence. 41. According to the alleged victim, he was convicted in criminal proceedings that did not ensure the right to double instance; in other words, he could not contest a judgment against him. According to the State, the petitioner sought constitutional protection through the tutela action and can lodge an action for 6