previous domestic proceedings and those that are still in progress, the Commission considers that the petition was submitted within a reasonable period of time. D. Duplication of Proceedings and International res judicata 58. Article 46.1.c of the Convention provides that admission of petitions is subject to the requirement that the matter “is not pending in another international proceeding” and Article 47.d of the Convention stipulates that the Commission will not admit a petition that is substantially the same as a prior petition or communication already examined by the Commission or another international organization. In the instant case, the parties have not claimed the existence of either of these two circumstances of inadmissibility, nor are they deduced from the file. E. Characterization of the Alleged Facts 59. For purposes of admissibility, the Commission must decide whether the petition presents 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 the basis for an 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 a prejudgment or an advance opinion on the merits. 60. The Commission considers that the alleged forced disappearance of the alleged victim and the alleged situation of impunity in which that event remains could characterize violations of rights enshrined in Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, as they relate to the obligations established in Article 1.1 of said instrument, as well as the rights established in Article I of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, all to the detriment of Juan Carlos Flores Bedregal. The Commission considers that these facts could also characterize a violation of rights enshrined in Articles 5, 8, and 25 of the American Convention as they relate to the obligations established in Article 1.1 of that instrument, to the detriment of the victim’s relatives. 61. The Commission also considers that the failure to define the crime of forced disappearance of persons until the year 2006 could characterize a violation of Article III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, ratified by Bolivia on May 5, 1999. 62. In addition, the Commission considers that the alleged failure to respond to petitions made to various agencies of the Executive Branch regarding the declassification of Army files, as well as the alleged failure to comply with a court order establishing that declassification could characterize a violation of rights enshrined in Articles 13 and 25 of the American Convention as they relate to Article 1.1 of that instrument. 63. Violations of Articles 13 and 25 of the American Convention as well as Articles I and III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons were not alleged by the petitioner and were incorporated by the Commission in accordance with the principle of iura novit curia.