domestic remedies are applicable in the present case must be made separately and prior to the analysis on the merits of the case, since it must meet a different standard than the one used to determine the possible violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. 12 2. Time period to submit the petition 49.Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention provides that for a petition to be admissible, it must be lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the petitioner was notified of the final judgment in the domestic jurisdiction. Article 32 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission provides that in those cases in which the exceptions to the requirement of prior exhaustion are applicable, the petition shall be presented within a reasonable period of time as determined by the Commission. For this purpose, the Commission shall consider the date on which the alleged violation of rights occurred and the circumstances of each case. 50.In the present case, with regard to that part of the complaint pertaining to the investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of the alleged victim, the Commission notes that her death occurred on May 25, 2004; that the criminal investigation was closed on January 18, 2005, without allegedly notifying the relatives of the alleged victim; and that the petition was lodged on March 23, 2005. Therefore, given the context and the characteristics of the present case, the Commission considers that the petition was filed within a reasonable period of time and that the provisions of Article 32 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission, regarding the timely filing of the petition for the purpose of admissibility, shall be considered met. With regard to that part of the complaint pertaining to Mrs. Chinchilla Sandoval’s access to adequate medical care while in prison, the Commission notes that the last petition for release filed concluded with the decision issued by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of Appeals of Guatemala on June 3, 2004. On that date, the court ruled that the appeal filed could not be resolved due to the death of Mrs. Chinchilla. Through order of certification dated August 9, 2004, the Administrative Office of the Second Chamber of the Court of Appeals for Criminal Matters, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes, attested to the fact that there was no pending notification. In that sense, taking into consideration that the petition was lodged on March 23, 2005, the Commission considers that the aforementioned part of the complaint was presented extemporaneously and, therefore, it will not be taken into consideration for the purposes of characterization. 51. 3. Duplication of proceedings and international res judicata 52. It is not evident from the record that the subject of the petition is pending in another international proceeding for settlement, nor that it is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization. Therefore, the requirements established in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) have been met. 4. Characterization of the alleged facts 53. As the Commission has previously stated in other cases, this is not the stage in the process of examining the petition in which to establish whether or not there has been a violation of the American Convention. For admissibility purposes, the IACHR must simply decide if the allegations constitute facts that could characterize a violation of the American Convention, as provided for in Article 47(b) of the same instrument, or if the petition is “manifestly groundless or obviously out of order” as outlined in subparagraph (c) of the same article. The standard to evaluate those extremes is different than the standard required to decide on the merits of the complaint. At this stage, the IACHR must carry out a prima facie evaluation which does not imply a prejudgment or a preliminary opinion on the merits. The Commission’s own Rules of Procedure reflect this distinction between the evaluation that must be done for the purpose of declaring a petition admissible and the evaluation required to establish whether or not the 12 Report No. 85/08, Petition 162-06, Melba del Carmen Suárez Peralta, Ecuador, October 30, 2008, para. 43. 10