9 disposal.19 The Commission concludes that the appeal sought to protect the right of equality and that exhaustion of that appeal served to bring the complaint before the State and to allow it to resolve the matter appropriately, as provided by Article 46. 34. Because of the foregoing, the Commission considers that in this case the Convention requirement that domestic legal remedies be exhausted has been met, as established in Article 46.1 of the American Convention. 2. Time period for filing the petition 35. Pursuant to Article 46.1 of the Convention, for a petition to be admitted it must be filed within six months of the date on which the alleged victim of rights violations was notified of the definitive ruling at the national level. In this case, the Commission considers it necessary to note specifically the fact that the petitioners sent their petition, addressed to the IACHR, to the office of the Inter-American Court where it was received on July 12, 2005. Subsequently, the Inter-American Court sent the petition to the IACHR, where it was received by the executive secretariat on September 19, 2005, the date on which the Commission became aware of the matter. Therefore, the IACHR considers July 12, 2005 as the date on which the complaint was lodged with the system, when analyzing the time period for filing the petition. 36. Considering the circumstances of this case, which include the exhaustion of domestic remedies with a ruling by the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court on February 14, 2005, which resolved the amparo appeal filed by the alleged victim, and that the petition was lodged on July 12, 2005, the Commission considers that in this case the requirement set forth in Article 46.1.b of the American Convention has been fulfilled. 3. Double jeopardy and matters tried in international courts 37. The file contains no indication that this petition is a matter pending in another international proceeding. Furthermore, the Commission did not receive any information indicating the existence of this type of situation, nor that the petition is a reproduction of a previously examined petition or communication. For this reason, the Commission considers the requirements of Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention to have been fulfilled. 4. Characterization of the facts 38. The Commission considers that it is not fitting at this stage of the proceeding to decide whether or not the alleged violations against the alleged victims took place. For purposes of admissibility, the IACHR must at this time resolve only whether facts are exhibited that, if proven, would characterize violations of the American Convention, in keeping with Article 47.b of the Convention, and whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order”, pursuant to paragraph (c) of that Article. The criterion for evaluating these extremes is different that the criteria required for ruling on the merits of a petition. The IACHR must conduct a prima facie evaluation to determine if the complaint supports the apparent or potential violation of a right 19 Both the Court and the Commission have held on repeated opportunities that: “(…) the rule that requires the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies is conceived in the interest of the State, because it seeks to prevent the State from having to respond before an international body for acts imputed against it without first having had the opportunity to remedy those acts by its own means.” Therefore, if the alleged victim contested the matter through any of the valid and appropriate alternatives provided by the domestic legal system and if the State had the opportunity to remedy the matter within its own jurisdiction, the purpose of the international norm is fulfilled. IACHR, Report No. 70/04 (Admissibility – Petition 667/01, Jesús Manuel Naranjo Cárdenas et. Al. – Retirees of Empresa Venezolana de Aviación VIASA v. Venezuela); 13 October 2004, paragraph 52.