6 and exhausted, in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. This requirement was established to allow national authorities the opportunity to consider alleged violations of protected rights and, if applicable, resolve such matters before they are heard by an international body. 36. The petitioners assert that, in the case of both Carlos Alberto Fernández Prieto and Carlos Alejandro Tumbeiro, all of the applicable domestic remedies available in criminal proceedings have been exhausted, up to and including review by the ultimate judicial instance, the Supreme Court. For its part, the State has not submitted any arguments indicating that the domestic remedies have not been exhausted. The Commission considers the provisions of Article 46(1)(a) to have been satisfied by the final Supreme Court decisions. 2. Time limit for presentation of the petition 37. Article 46(1) of the Convention provides that in order for a petition to be admitted it must be submitted within the stipulated period, i.e., within six months from the date on which the party alleging a violation of his rights was notified of a final judgment at the domestic level. 38. In the present case, according to information provided by the petitioners, Mr. Fernández Prieto was not notified personally of the final judgment in the case against him. Notification of this judgment was sent on March 19, 1999 to his defense, which informed the alleged victim. Since the petition was lodged with the Commission on July 30, 1999, the requirement established in Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention has been satisfied. 39. In the case of Carlos Alejandro Tumbeiro, the Commission notes that the Supreme Court decision is dated October 3, 2002 and that the petition was lodged with the Commission on March 31, 2003, so that, in this case, too, the requirement in Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention has been satisfied. 3. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 40. Article 46(1)(c) of the Convention provides that admission of a petition is subject to the requirement that the matter "is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement"; and Article 47(d) of the Convention stipulates that the Commission will not admit a petition that is “substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization.” In the case before us, the parties have not reported any such conditions for inadmissibility, and none are apparent from the proceedings. 4. Characterization of the facts alleged 41. Article 47(b) of the American Convention considers inadmissible any petition that does not state facts tending to establish a violation of the rights guaranteed by the Convention. In the present case, it is not for the Commission to decide at this stage in the proceedings whether or not the alleged violations of the American Convention occurred. The IACHR has carried out a prima facie evaluation and has determined that the petition describes complaints that, if proven, might conceivably establish possible violations of the rights protected by the Convention. 42. Neither the American Convention nor the IACHR Rules of Procedure require a petitioner to identify the specific rights allegedly violated by the State in the matter brought before the Commission, although petitioners may do so. It is for the Commission to establish in its admissibility reports, on the basis of the system’s case law, which provisions of the relevant inter-American instruments are applicable and could be determined to have been violated if the facts alleged are supported by sufficient evidence. 43. In this case, the petitioners contend that the alleged victims were subject to unlawful and arbitrary arrest and seizure, and that, consequently, the substances found in their possession should have been excluded from the criminal investigation. They add that the courts ignored the arguments put forward by the attorneys for the defense, and that the proceedings should have been invalidated because they