also of the opinion that the rule whereby domestic proceedings, like those in this case, should not have to depend on the initiative of the victims’ relatives, also applies at this stage.11 53. In light of the above, the Commission concludes that the investigation and criminal proceedings did not amount to an appropriate mechanism for analyzing the exhaustion of domestic remedies requirement and that therefore the exception set forth in Article 46.2.a of the American Convention shall apply. 2. Time allowed for presentation of the petition 54. Article 46.1.b. of the Convention establishes that a petition may be admitted if it is lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the interested party was notified of the final judgment that exhausted domestic jurisdiction. This rule shall not apply when the Commission finds that one or more of the exceptions to the exhaustion of domestic remedies set forth in Article 46.3 of the Convention are applicable. In such cases, the Commission must determine whether the petition was presented within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with Article 32 of its Rules of Procedure. 55. Given that the petition was lodged on September 20, 2004 and that in domestic criminal proceedings procedural activities continued until November 10, 2003, the Commission considers that the complaint was lodged in a reasonable period of time. 3. Duplication of procedures and international res judicata 56. Article 46.1.c of the Convention establishes that admission of a petition is subject to the requirement that the subject of the petition “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 same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization. In the instant case, the Parties have not argued the existence of either of these two grounds for inadmissibility, nor can they be deduced from the procedures. 4. Characterization of the facts alleged 57. For purposes of admissibility, the Commission must decide whether facts are stated that tend to establish a violation, as stipulated in Article 47.b of the American Convention, or whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order,” according to subparagraph (c) of the same article. 58. The criteria for deciding on these allegations differ from those required to decide on the merits of a complaint. The Committee has to make a prima facie evaluation to examine whether the complaint establishes an apparent or potential violation of the right guaranteed by the Convention, not to establish the existence of a violation. Such an examination is a summary analysis that does not imply any prejudice or preliminary opinion on the merits.12 59. The Commission considers that the facts alleged in the petition could constitute a violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 4 and 5 of the American Convention, to the detriment of Igmar Alexander Landaeta Mejías, as well as the rights enshrined in Articles 5, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, to the detriment of his relatives, all in relation to the obligations established in Article 1.1 of the same instrument. The Commission includes the possible violation of the right enshrined in Article 25 of the Convention, by virtue of the principle iura novit curia. See, in general: IACHR, Report No. 5/02, petition 12.080. Admissibility. Sergio Schiavini, María Teresa Schnack de Schiavini, Argentina, February 27, 2002, paragraph 52. 12 IACHR, Report No. 21/04, Petition 12.190, Admissibility, José Luis Tapia González et al., Chile, February 24, 2004, para. 33. 11 8