83. Article 46.1.b of the Convention provides that, to be admissible, a petition must be lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the petitioners are notified of the final judgment exhausting domestic remedies. That six-month rule guarantees legal certainty and stability once a decision has been taken. In the absence of a final decision, Article 32.2 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure requires that the petition be presented within a reasonable time. 84. The Commission notes that the last definitive decision at the federal level with respect to the motion for constitutional protection was issued on February 5, 1998 by the federal Supreme Court, and the petition was submitted to the IACHR on August 4, 1998. As noted in the previous section, there is another appeal pending at the date of this report. Therefore, the Commission concludes that this requirement of the Convention has been met. 3. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 85. Article 46.1.b establishes as a condition for a petition to be admissible that "the subject of the petition or communication is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement”, and Article 47 of the Convention stipulates that the Commission shall consider inadmissible any petition that "is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization". In the present case, the parties have not indicated that either of these circumstances applies, nor can they be deduced from the file. 4. Characterization of the facts alleged 86. The State has requested the Commission to declare the petition inadmissible. The Commission considers that it is not appropriate at this stage of the proceedings to establish whether or not there has been a violation of the American Convention. For purposes of admissibility, the IACHR must determine whether the petition describes facts that could characterize a violation, as stipulated in Article 47.b, and whether the petition is "manifestly groundless or obviously out of order”, according to subparagraph (c) of that Article. 87. The standard for appreciating these limits is different from that required for deciding on the merits of a complaint. The Commission must make a prima facie evaluation to examine whether the complaint establishes an apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed in