the Commission that the period has indeed expired, since it is a rule that may be waived, either expressly or by implication, by the State having the right to invoke it. 11 32. Finally, the Commission believes it should point out that in its view, the petitioners acted in good faith in lodging their complaint on January 28, 2002, and by indicating that the date of the final decision was July 28, 2001, since on the certifying deed the State incurred in the same material error. 3. Duplication of Proceedings and Res Judicata 33. The petition dossier contains no information to indicate that this matter is pending in any other international settlement proceeding or has been previously examined by the InterAmerican Commission. The IACHR therefore concludes that the requirement contained in Article 46(1)(c) of the American Convention has been met. D. Characterization of the Alleged Facts 34. The State argues that the death sentence was handed down to the alleged victim within Guatemala’s strictest legal framework and that consequently there is no arbitrary threat to his rights. 35. The Commission has stated that this stage in the proceedings is not intended to establish whether or not a violation of the American Convention was committed. 12 At the admissibility stage, the IACHR must decide whether the stated facts tend to establish a violation, as stipulated in Article 47(b) of the American Convention, and whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order,” as stated in section (c) of that same article. The level of conviction regarding those standards is different from that which applies in deciding on the merits of a complaint. The IACHR must conduct a prima facie assessment to examine whether the complaint entails an apparent or potential violation of a right protected by the Convention and not to establish the existence of such a violation. That examination is a summary analysis that does not imply prejudging the merits or offering an advance opinion on them. Thus, the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, by setting two clearly separate phases for admissibility and for merits, reflects the distinction between the evaluation that the IACHR must conduct to declare a petition admissible and the assessment necessary to establish a violation. 36. The Commission believes that the facts in the complaint tend prima facie to characterize a violation of the rights to life, humane treatment, a fair trial, and judicial protection enshrined in Articles 4, 5, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with State’s general obligation of respecting and ensuring those rights set forth in Article 1(1) thereof. Additionally, the Commission believes that the allegations regarding the State of Guatemala’s failure to comply with the obligation contained in Article 2 of the American Convention, if proven true, could tend to establish a violation of the American Convention. Consequently, the IACHR concludes that the instant petition meets the requirements set forth in sections (b) and (c) of Article 47. 37. Notwithstanding the above, as regards the alleged violation of the right to compensation enshrined in Article 10 of the American Convention, the Commission notes that the text thereof states that: “Every person has the right to be compensated in accordance with the law in the event he has been sentenced by a final judgment through a miscarriage of justice.” The petitioners base their claim that the right to compensation was violated on the fact that enforcement of the death penalty with respect to the alleged victim would prevent him from seeking a review of the proceedings in order to secure the annulment of the final judgment under which he was convicted, should that judgment turn out to be the consequence of a 11 Inter-Am.Ct.H.R., Neira Alegría et al. Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of December 11, 1991, paragraph 30. See, in this regard: IACHR, Report Nº 28/01, Case 12.367, Mauricio Herrera Ulloa and Fernán Vargas Rohrmoser of the newspaper La Nación, Costa Rica, December 3, 2001 12 6