26. The American Convention provides that for a petition to be admissible, it must be presented within six months of the date on which the party alleging violation of rights was notified of the final judgment. In the complaint under review the IACHR has determined that the exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies pursuant to Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention are applicable. In this regard, Article 32 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure states that when the exceptions to the rule requiring prior exhaustion of domestic remedies apply, the petition is to be presented within what the Commission deems to be a reasonable period. The Commission must therefore consider the date on which the alleged violation of rights occurred and the circumstances of each case. 27. As regards the specific circumstances of the facts alleged in the petition, the IACHR has already set out its position in the sense that the facts that are the subject of the complaint occurred during the internal armed conflict in Guatemala. In that connection, the Commission must conclude that the internal armed conflict ended in 1996 with the signing of the peace accords, which act made it possible to investigate the violations perpetrated during same. The effects of the alleged ineffectiveness of the domestic remedies continue into the present, given that at the time that the petition was lodged with the Inter-American Commission in 2004 the investigation of the facts were still at the initial stage. 6 28. Therefore, in light of the context and characteristics of this case, as well as the fact that the investigation is still open, the Commission considers that the petition was lodged within a reasonable time and that the admissibility requirement in that regard must be deemed met. D. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 29. The case file does not show that the subject of the petition is pending other international settlement procedures, or that it replicates a petition already examined by this or another international organization. Therefore, the Commission finds that the requirements set forth in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention have been met. 2. Characterization of the alleged facts 30. The Commission considers that it is not appropriate at this stage of the proceedings to determine whether or not the alleged violations of the rights of the alleged victims actually took place. For admissibility purposes, the IACHR must only decide whether deeds are alleged that, if proven, would amount to violations of the American Convention, as stipulated in Article 47(b) thereof, and whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order” (Article 47.c). 31. The standard for evaluating these factual requirements is different from the requirement for deciding on the merits of a petition. The IACHR must conduct a prima facie evaluation to determine whether the petition supports the apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the American Convention, but not to establish the existence of a violation.7 This determination involves a summary analysis which does not imply a prejudgment or advance opinion on the substance of the matter. The Commission’s Rules of Procedure, by establishing one stage for admissibility and another on merits, reflects this distinction between the evaluation that the Commission must conduct for the purpose of declaring a petition admissible and that required to establish a violation imputable to the State.8 6IACHR, Report No. 13/08, P. 844-05, Admissibility, Community of Rio Negro of the Maya Indigenous People and Its Members, Guatemala, March 5, 2008, par. 87. 7IACHR, Report No. 128/01, Case 12367, Mauricio Herrera Ulloa and Fernán Vargas Rohrmoser of “La Nación” newspaper (Costa Rica), December 3, 2001, para. 50; Report No. 4/04, Petition 12324, Rubén Luis Godoy (Argentina), February 24, 2004, para. 43; Report No. 32/07, Petition 429-05, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia et al. (Chile), April 23, 2007, para. 54. 8IACHR, Report No. 31/03, Case 12195, Mario Alberto Jara Oñate et al (Chile), March 7, 2003, para. 41; Report No. 4/04, Petition 12324, Rubén Luis Godoy (Argentina), February 24, 2004, para. 43; Petition 429-05, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia et al (Chile), April 23, 2007, para. 54; Petition 581-05, Víctor Manuel Ancalaf LLaupe (Chile), May 2, 2007, para 46. 6