remedy was presented late.20 In light of the fact that the petitioners argued that that excessive insistence on formality had violated their right to a fair trial, the Commission took the view that the examination of that circumstance belonged in the merits stage and, therefore, took as exhausted the remedies under domestic law.21 44. Under that same logic, the Commission finds that the allegations regarding the “maneuver” by which the petitioners were prevented from filing the extraordinary federal appeal could be examined by the Commission in the merits stage. The reason for the foregoing is that said circumstance is part of the concrete submissions advanced by the petitioners in this case in relation to the alleged violation of article 8 of the Convention. To undertake such an examination in the admissibility stage would be improper. 45. Based on the foregoing, the IACHR considers that domestic remedies have been sufficiently exhausted by the petitioners for the purposes of the admissibility stage and, therefore, the provisions of article 46.1.a of the Convention have been met. 2. Timeliness of the petition 46. Article 46.1.b of 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. 47. The facts in this case thus show that exhaustion of domestic remedies occurred while the case was being examined for admissibility. Under those circumstances, the Commission has consistently taken the view that fulfillment of the requirement regarding the time period for lodging the petition is intrinsically linked to the exhaustion of domestic remedies and should therefore be regarded as complied with.22 48. Therefore, in light of the context and characteristics of this petition, the Commission considers that the petition was lodged within a reasonable time and that the admissibility requirement regarding the timeliness of its presentation must be deemed met. 3. Duplication of international proceedings 49. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the subject matter of the petition is pending in another international proceeding for settlement or that it is has been previously studied by the Inter-American Commission. Therefore, the IACHR concludes that the exceptions provided at articles 46.1.d and 47.d of the American Convention are not applicable. 4. Colorable claim 50. 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 20 IACHR, Report No. 66/09, Petition 920-03, Admissibility, Marcos Gilberto Chaves and Sandra Beatriz Chaves, Argentina, August 4, 2009, para. 8. 21 IACHR, Report No. 66/09, Petition 920-03, Admissibility, Marcos Gilberto Chaves and Sandra Beatriz Chaves, Argentina, August 4, 2009, para. 21. 22 See, inter alia: IACHR, Report No. 92/14, Petition P-1196-03, Admissibility, Daniel Omar Camusso and son, Argentina, November 4, 2014, para. 80; IACHR, Report 8/10. Case 12,374, Admissibility, Jorge Enrique Patiño Palacios et al., Paraguay, March 16, 2010, para. 31; IACHR, Report 20/05, Petition 716/00, Admissibility, Rafael Correa Díaz, Peru, February 25, 2005, para. 34. 9