2. Timeliness of the Petition 42. Article 46.1.b of the Convention establishes that, in order for the petition to be declared admissible, it must be filed within 6 months of the date on which the interested party was served notice of the final decision that exhausted the domestic remedies. 43. The Commission observes that the initial petition was filed on January 3, 2002 and that later, in October 2002, the petitioner was formally served notice of the amparo decision that exhausted the domestic remedies. In addition, the Commission notes that the petitioner asserts that the facts complained of in this case and the alleged denial of justice have continued to affect his rights and the rights of his family. Accordingly, and in view of the particular circumstances of the processing of this matter, the IACHR finds that the admissibility requirement pertaining to timeliness has been met. 3. Duplication of Proceedings and International Res Judicata 44. There is nothing in the case record to indicate that the subject of the petition is pending adjudication in another international proceeding, or that it duplicates a petition already examined by this or another international body. Therefore, the requirements established in Articles 46.1.c and 47.d of the American Convention have been met. 4. Colorable Claim 45. The Inter-American Commission must determine whether the act described in the petition amount to violations of the rights enshrined in the American Convention, according to the requirements of the Article 47.b, or whether the petition, according to Article 47.c, should be dismissed as “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order.” At this stage of the proceedings, the IACHR must conduct a prima facie evaluation, not for purposes of establishing the alleged violations of the American Convention, but rather to examine whether the petition alleges acts that could potentially constitute violations of the rights guaranteed in the American Convention. This analysis does not entail prejudgment or an advance opinion on the merits of the case.10 By establishing two clear phases of admissibility and merits, the Rules of Procedure of the Commission reflect this distinction between the evaluation that the Commission must perform for purposes of declaring a petition admissible and the analysis required to establish a violation. 46. Neither the American Convention nor the IACHR’s Rules of Procedure require the petitioner to identify the specific rights alleged to have been violated by the State in the matter submitted to the Commission, although the petitioners may do so if they wish. It is incumbent upon the Commission, based on the case law of the system, to determine in its admissibility reports what provision of the relevant interAmerican instruments is applicable and to find a violation of the facts alleged are proven through sufficient evidence. 47. The petitioner claimed that he had been the victim of disciplinary sanctions, arrests, removal from his post, the deprivation of his salary, the blocking of his promotion, forced resignation, and discharge from military service, as well as multiple acts of persecution, including being subjected to judicial and disciplinary proceedings, after he exposed acts of corruption in the administration of public funds by the Ecuadorian Armed Forces. He further alleged that as a result of such events he and his family were forced to seek asylum in the United Kingdom. He argues that judicial remedies were not effective to protect his right to report corruption without being subjected to reprisals. 48. In the opinion of the Commission, the facts alleged by the petitioner may constitute, if proven at the merits stage, a violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 5 (humane treatment), 7 (personal liberty), 13 (Freedom of Thought and Expression), 22.1 (Freedom of Movement and Residence), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), 52. 10 IACHR, Report No. 21/04, Petition 12.190, Admissibility, José Luís Tapia González et al., Chile, February 24, 2004, paras. 33 &