37. The Inter-American Commission confirms that the remedies provided by Chilean law for these cases have been exhausted and consequently determines that the petition under review meets the requirement established in Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention. 2. Deadline for submission of the petition 38. Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention establishes as one of the requirements for admission of a petition that it be "lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the party alleging violation of his rights was notified of the final judgment.” 39. In this regard, the State argues that the petition is inadmissible because the Executive Secretariat of the IACHR informed the State of the petition on August 12, 2005, i.e., beyond the deadline established in Articles 46(1)(b) and 47(a) of the Convention and Article 32(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission. 40. It is a fact undisputed by the parties that on November 22, 2004 the Supreme Court of Chile ruled on the final appeal filed during the case against Mr. Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe. According to the provisions of Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention, the deadline for submitting a complaint to the IACHR was May 22, 2005. In the instant case, the petition or communication from the petitioners was received by the IACHR on May 20, 2005. 41. Based on the above, the IACHR rejects the argument made by the State of Chile that the petition is inadmissible because it was not submitted on a timely basis. This is because the six month period established under Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention runs from the date on which the party alleging violation of his rights was notified of the final decision until the petition is submitted to the IACHR, not until the petition is transmitted to the respective State. 42. Based on the foregoing, the IACHR concludes that the petition satisfies the requirement established in Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention. 3. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 43. The petition file contains no information that could lead to a determination that the complaint submitted is pending in any other international proceeding. Neither are there any indications that this petition reproduces a petition previously reviewed by the IACHR. Thus, this body concludes that the requirements under Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the American Convention have been satisfied. 4. Characterization of the facts 44. In this matter, the State alleges that the petition is inadmissible because the facts related therein do not constitute violations of rights protected by the Convention, on which basis it asked the IACHR to throw out the complaint pursuant to Article 47(b) and c of the American Convention. 45. In this regard, the Commission considers that it is not appropriate at this stage of the proceedings to decide whether there were violations of the alleged victim’s right to a fair trial or the principle of freedom from ex post facto laws. For purposes of admissibility, the IACHR must at this point only resolve whether facts are presented that, should they be proven, would characterize violations of the American Convention, as stipulated in Article 47(b) thereof, and whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order,“ as per subparagraph “c” of that same article. 46. The criterion for evaluating these points is different from that needed to rule on the merits of a complaint. The IACHR must perform a prima facie evaluation and determine whether the 7