31. Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention establishes that in order for a petition to be declared admissible it must be presented within six months counted from the date on which the petitioner was notified of the final decision that exhausted remedies in the domestic jurisdiction. 32. In the instant case, the Commission notes that the exhaustion of domestic remedies occurred when the case was being examined for admissibility. In light of the above, compliance with the six months deadline is intrinsically linked to the exhaustion of domestic remedies and, therefore, the timeliness of presentation requirement must be considered met. D. Duplication of proceedings and international res judicata 33. Article 46(1)(c) provides that the admissibility of petitions is subject to the requirement that the subject “is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement,” while Article 47(d) of the Convention stipulates that the Commission shall not admit a petition that “is substantially the same as one previously studied” by the Commission or by another international organization. In the instant case, the parties have not argued the existence of either of those circumstances, nor can they be deduced from the record. E. Colorable claim (characterization of the facts alleged) 34. For purposes of admissibility, the Commission must decide whether the petition states facts that tend to establish a violation, as stipulated in Article 47(b) of the American Convention, whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or whether it is "obviously out of order,” as per Article 47(c). The standard by which to assess these extremes is different from the one needed to decide the merits of a petition. The Commission must perform a prima facie evaluation to examine whether the complaint establishes a basis for an apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention and not to establish the existence of a violation. Such a review is a summary analysis that does not imply any pre-judging or anticipation of an opinion on the merits. 35. Neither the American Convention nor the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR require that the petition identify the specific rights allegedly violated by the State in a matter submitted to the Commission, though the petitioners may do so. It is up to 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 could be established as having been violated, if the facts alleged are sufficiently proven. 36. The Commission considers that the petitioners' pleadings point to deeds that could constitute violation of the rights to life, personal integrity, personal liberty, freedom of association, judicial guarantees and judicial protection established in Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 16 and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the obligations established in Article 1.1 of the same instrument. V. PROVEN FACTS 37. The Commission notes that the facts alleged by the petitioners in relation to Alejandro Yovany Gómez, his immediate family, his work as a trade unionist, his disappearance, and murder were not contested by the State. The core query raised by the State is not about the facts. Rather, it has to do with the investigations conducted in Guatemala and the lack of circumstantial evident of the involvement of State agents. The Commission will take that into account in this section for the purpose of determining the proven facts of the case. A. Regarding Alejandro Gómez and his participation in the RCA Assembly Plant Workers Trade Union 5