November 27, 2007. In response to that decision, the alleged victim filed an appeal with the higher court, which was resolved by the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile in a judgment dated April 17, 2008. This latter ruling confirmed all parts of the judgment of the Court of Appeals of San Miguel. 22. The Commission notes that the alleged victim exhausted the remedies that the Chilean legal order offered her to put an end to the situation alleged to be a violation of her rights. The Commission also notes in particular that the State has expressly indicated that it does not have any objection regarding the formal requirements, and it is thus appropriate to deem as properly confirmed the exhaustion of domestic remedies imposed under Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention. C. Deadline for submitting the petition 23. Article 46(1)(b) of the American 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 notified of the final judgment that exhausted the domestic jurisdiction. 24. In the specific case, the Commission has already established that the domestic remedies were exhausted with the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice dated and reported in the Estado Diario of April 17, 2008, with respect to which the “to be carried out,” [locally referred to in Spanish as the “cúmplase” order] as can be seen in the copies of the proceedings provided by the petitioners, was reported to the alleged victim on April 30, 2008. In that the petition was received on October 28, 2008, the Commission considers the deadline provided in Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention to have been met. D. Duplication of proceedings and international res judicata 25. Article 46(1)(c) of the Convention provides that the admission of petitions is subject to the requirement that the subject “is not pending in another international proceeding " and Article 47(d) of the Convention stipulates that the Commission will not accept a petition that is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization. 26. The file does not indicate that the subject of the petition is pending another international proceeding or that it reproduces a petition already examined by this or any other international body. Therefore, it is appropriate to deem that the requirements established in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention have been met. E. Characterization of the alleged facts 27. For admissibility purposes, the Commission must decide whether the petition states facts that 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,” in accordance with paragraph (c) of the same article. The standard for assessing these points is different from that required to rule on the merits of a complaint. The Commission must perform a prima facie evaluation to examine whether the complaint provides the 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 and does not imply a prejudgment or advance opinion on the merits. 28. Neither the American Convention nor the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR require that the petition identify the specific rights allegedly violated by the State in a matter submitted to the Commission, though the petitioners may do so. It is up to the Commission, based on the case-law of the system, to determine in its admissibility reports which provision of the relevant inter-American instruments is applicable or could be established as having been violated, if the facts alleged are sufficiently proven. 29. In light of the arguments of fact and of law presented by the parties and the nature of the matter before it, the IACHR finds that the petitioners’ submissions regarding the alleged withdrawal of the 4