2. Filing deadline for the petition 35. Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention establishes that all petitions must be filed within six months of the date on which the petitioner was given notice of the final judgment that exhausted the domestic remedies. Given that the alleged victims received notice of the final judgment on March 7, 2007, and the complaint was submitted to the IACHR on August 29, 2007, the Commission concludes that the deadline stipulated in the abovementioned provision of the Convention was met. 2. Duplication of proceedings and international res judicata 36. Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) establish that the admission of a petition is conditioned on the requirement that the matter “is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement” and that the petition is not “substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization.” There is nothing on record to indicate that this petition is pending in another international proceeding. Furthermore, the Commission has not received any information to indicate the existence of such a situation or that the complaint duplicates a previously examined petition or communication. Accordingly, it finds that the requirements of Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention have been met. 3. Characterization of the alleged facts 37. The Inter-American Commission must determine whether the facts described in the petition amount to violations of rights enshrined in the American Convention, according to the requirements of Article 47(b), or whether the petition, under Article 47(c), must be rejected for being “manifestly groundless” or “out of order.” At this stage in the proceedings, the IACHR must perform a prima facie evaluation, not for purposes of establishing alleged violations of the American Convention, but rather in order to examine whether the petition complains of acts that could potentially amount to violations of rights guaranteed in the American Convention. This examination does not entail prejudgment or an advance opinion on the merits of the case.3 38. 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 brought before the Commission, although the petitioners may do so. It is the responsibility of the Commission, based on the case law of the system, to determine in its admissibility reports which provision of the relevant Inter-American instruments is applicable or may have been violated, if the facts alleged are proven by sufficient evidence. 39. The petitioners asserted that the imposition of a penalty against two journalists who published information duly substantiated by a government source regarding a matter in the public interest violates Article 13 of the American Convention. 40. The State, for its part, maintained that the decisions of the domestic courts adhered to the applicable standards developed by the inter-American human rights bodies and that the judicial authorities therefore exercised the proper conventionality control. 41. On this point, it bears repeating that the Inter-American Commission has jurisdiction to declare a petition admissible and to rule on its merits when it concerns a decision rendered by a national court that, as alleged, could substantially affect a right guaranteed by the American Convention.4 In this case, the IACHR observes that the object of this petition is to determine whether the penalty imposed by the Costa Rican tribunals against the alleged victims satisfies the relevant requirements set forth in the American Convention. 3 52. IACHR, Report No. 21/04. Petition 12.190. Admissibility. José Luís Tapia González et al. Chile. February 24, 2004. Paras. 33 & 4 See IACHR, Report No. 32/07, Petition 452-05. Juan Patricio Marielo Saravia et al. (Chile), May 2, 2007, para. 57; Report No. 1/03, Case 12.221, Jorge Omar Gutiérrez (Argentina), February 20, 2003, para. 46, citing Report No. 39/96, Case 11.673, Marzioni, Argentina, October 15, 1996, paras. 50-51. See, IACHR, Report No. 4/04, Petition 12.324, Rubén Luis Godoy (Argentina), February 24, 2004, para. 44.