41. The Commission deems that the fact that more than 20 years have elapsed since the disappearance of Wilfredo Terrones Silva and Néstor Rojas Medina, without any determination of their whereabouts and without any final judgment establishing what had happened and punishing those responsible, has not been justified by the state by any argument that would make it possible to establish a concrete connection between a delay of such magnitude and the alleged complexity of the cases. In that regard, the Commission deems that, in both case 11.053 and case 12.225, the exception of unwarranted delay is applicable in accordance with the terms of Article 46.2.c) of the American Convention. 2. Time-limits to file the petition 42. Article 46.1 b) of the Convention establishes that, for the petition to be declared admissible, it has to be lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the party alleging violation was notified of the final judgment that exhausted remedies under domestic law. This rule, however, is not applicable when the Commission finds that one of the exceptions to the exhaustion of remedies under domestic law has been established, as enshrined in Article 46.2 of the American Convention. In said cases, the Commission must determine if the petition was filed in a reasonable period of time, in line with Article 32 of its Rules of Procedure. 43. As indicated in paragraph 41 above, the Commission concluded that the exception set forth in Article 46.2 c) of the American Convention was applicable. Taking into account that the petition regarding Mr. Wilfredo Terrones Silva was filed shortly after his disappearance and that the petition regarding Mr. Néstor Rojas Medina was filed eight years afterwards, without any progress in the criminal investigation being reported, and taking into account the ongoing nature of the crime of forced disappearance and the alleged denial of justice to the detriment of the next of kin of Mr. Terrones and Mr. Rojas, the IACHR deems that the requirement stipulated in Article 46.1 b) of the American Convention and Article 32 of its Rules of Procedure has been met. 3. Duplication of proceedings and international res judicata 44. Article 46.1.c) of the Convention provides that admitting the petitions is subject to the requirement that the case “is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement” and Article 47 d) of the Convention stipulates that the Commission shall not admit any petition that is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization. In the present case, the parties have not highlighted the existence of any of these two circumstances, nor can they be inferred from the case file. 4. Characterization of the alleged facts 45. For purposes of admissibility, the Commission must decide whether or not the petition states facts that could tend to establish a violation as stipulated by Article 47 b) of the American Convention, whether or not the petition is “manifestly groundless,” and whether or not it is “obviously out of order,” according to subparagraph c) of the same article. The standard of appreciation for these matters is different from what is required to decide upon the merits of a petition. The Commission must conduct a prima facie evaluation to examine if the petition substantiates the apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed under the Convention, not to establish the existence of any violation. This examination involves a summary review that does not entail any prejudice or anticipated opinion on the merits of the case. 46. Likewise, neither the American Convention nor the Rules of Procedures of the IACHR require the petitioners to identify the specific rights that were allegedly violated by the state in a case submitted to the Commission, although the petitioners are entitled to do so. It pertains to the Commission, on the basis of the system’s jurisprudence, to determine in its admissibility reports, what provision of the relevant interAmerican instruments can be applied and might tend to establish its violation if the alleged facts are proven on the basis of sufficient elements.