53. Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention stipulates that admission of a petition requires “that the petition or communication is 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”. 54.The instant petition was lodged with the IACHR on January 19, 1999, five months after the Supreme Court’s decision rejecting the recurso de queja filed by the petitioner on July 31, 1998. Therefore, the petition meets the requirements with regard to timeliness established in Article 46(1)(b)of the Convention. D. Duplication of proceedings 55. Article 46(1)(c) of the Convention provides that admissibility of a petition by the Commission requires that the subject of the petition or communication is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement. Article 47(d) of the Convention also stipulates that the Commission shall declare inadmissible any petition that is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization. 56.From the statements of the parties and the documents in the file, it does not appear that the petition is pending in any other international proceeding or forum, or that it is substantially the same as any previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization.The Commission therefore considers that in the instant case the requirements for admissibility in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention have been met. E. Nature of the facts alleged 57. For purposes of admissibility, the IACHR has to determine whether the facts stated in the petition tend to establish a violation of rights set forth in the American Convention, as required under Article 47(b), or whether the petition must be dismissed as "manifestly groundless" or "obviously out of order" under Article 47(c). 58. The standard by which to assess these extremes is different from the one needed to decide the merits of a petition. The IACHR must do a prima facie evaluation, not to establish the existence of a violation but rather to examine whether the petition states facts that tend to establish a potential or apparent violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention. That examination is a summary analysis that does not imply any prejudgment or advance opinion on the merits of the petition. By establishing two clearly separate phases -one for admissibility and the other for the merits- the Commission's own Rules of Procedure reflect the distinction between the evaluation the Commission must make to declare a petition admissible, and the evaluation required to establish a violation. 59. With regard to the rights protected under Article 13, petitioners allege that the Committee on Foreign Investment failed to provide an adequate response to a legitimate request for access to state-held information, withholding information that was wrongly deemed "confidential." The State claims that it has complied with its obligation to provide access to state-held information by answering some of the petitioners' requests and that the remaining requests were not answered because the State legitimately considered the information to be confidential in nature. Article 13 includes the right to "seek, receive and impart information." In this case, the