8 33. On December 9, 2004 Mrs. Acosta filed a special cassation appeal against the decision of November 29, 2004 and asked that all actions taken since April 19, 2002 be declared null w ith respect to the alleged masterminds of the crime. For his part, the Assistant Prosecutor of the Office of the Attorney General asked for a decision on nullification based on the ruli ng of April 17, 2002 and that a proceeding being draw n up against the alleged masterminds of the crime. On December 19, 2006, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Case 2019 -2004) declared the cassation appeal inadmissible, stating that “ res judicata underlies the decision in question [definitive interlocutory judgment of acquittal] by virtue of the fact that the parties w here legally informed thereof and consented to it by not mounting any appeal against it.” 34. The Commission understands that this criminal process – considering as such the sum of all procedural actions occurring in the various judicial instances and in incidental issues – must be evaluated and analyzed as a w hole and, as a result, notes that the process ended at the point w hen the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court denied the special cassation appeal submitted by Mrs. Acosta’ s legal representatives. Given that the circumstances that allegedly prevented the acceptance of the appeal against the decision to acquit form part of the petitioners’ substantive allegations and w ere made know n to the authorities, those allegations and the consequences thereof require analysis in the merits phase. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the domestic remedies w ere exhausted through the decision handed dow n on December 19, 2006 by the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Nicaragua. Accordingly, the Commission believes that the requirement established in Article 46.1.a of the American Convention has been met. C. Timeliness of the petition 35. In accordance w ith the provisions of Article 46.1.b of the American Convention, in order for a petition to be admitted it must be submitted w ithin a period of six months from the date on w hich the complainant w as informed of the final decision issued at the national level. 36. The IACHR has established that the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of Nicaragua on December 19, 2006 exhausted the domestic remedies. The information provided by the parties indicates that the alleged victims w ere informed of that decision on December 22, 2006. As a result and bearing in mind that the petition w as filed on June 22, 2007, the IACHR considers the requirement established in Article 46.1.b of the American Convention to have been met. D Duplication of proceedings and international res judicata 37. In order for a petition to be declared admissible, the American Convention requires in Article 46.1.c that the matter not be pending settlement in any other international proceeding and in Article 47.d that it not duplicate the content of a petition already examined by this or any other international organization. The petitioners assert that the petition is not pending settlement in any other international proceeding and the case file does not indicate otherw ise. Therefore, the IACHR considers the requirements established in Articles 46.1.c and 47.d of the American Convention to have been met. E. Colorable claim 38. For purposes of admissibility, the Commission must decide w hether the alleged facts, if proven, could tend to establish a violation of rights, as stipulated in Article 47.b of the American Convention, or w hether the petition is “ manifestly groundless” or “ obviously out of order” in accordance w ith paragraph (c) of that article. The criterion for evaluating those requirements is different from that used to rule on the merits of a petition. The Commission must perform a prima facie evaluation to determine w hether the petition establishes the basis for a possible or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention, but not to establish the existence of a violation of 8