3. Time period for submitting the petition 81. Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention provides that in order for a petition to be admitted, it must be submitted within a six month period counting from the date on which the party alleging a violation of his rights was notified of a final judgment at the domestic level. The provision of six months guarantees judicial certainty and stability once a decision has been adopted. 82. Pursuant to Article 32.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR, in cases where the exceptions to the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies are applicable, the petition shall be presented within a reasonable period of time, as determined by the Commission. In accordance with this article, in its analysis the Commission “shall consider the date on which the alleged violation of rights occurred and the circumstances of each case.” 83. With regard to the petition under study, the Commission has determined that the exception to Article 46(2)(c) is applicable due to the unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under domestic remedies. In this sense, the Commission must pronounce on whether the time period in which the petition was lodged is considered reasonable, in accordance with the aforementioned provision. 84. The Commission observes that the petition was received on July 29, 2005, and that the events described in the initial complaint allegedly took place on August 29, 1996, with threats and harassment approximately two weeks after these facts, and the attempted kidnapping occurring in 1997. It likewise observes that its effects, in terms of the alleged lack of administration of justice persist to the present. Therefore, taking into account the context and characteristics of the instant case, in which the alleged victims remain in exile, the Commission considers that the petition was presented within a reasonable period of time and the admissibility requirement pertaining to the time period for lodging the petition has been satisfied. 4. Characterization of the alleged facts 85. In the instant case, it is not up to the Commission at this stage of the proceedings to decide whether the alleged violations of the articles of the American Convention actually occurred to the detriment of the presumed victim. For the purposes of admissibility, the IACHR must decide at this time only whether the facts, should they be proven, would tend to characterize violations of the Convention, as stipulated in Article 47(b) of the American Convention, and whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order” according to subparagraph (c) of that article. 86. The criterion for evaluating these points of law is different than that required to pronounce on the merits of a complaint. The IACHR must conduct a prima facie assessment to examine whether the complaint entails an apparent or potential violation of a right protected by the Convention and not to establish the existence of such a violation. The examination that must be conducted at this time is simply a summary analysis that does not imply a prejudgment or an advance opinion on the merits of the matter. The Commission’s Rules of Procedure, by setting two clearly separate phases for admissibility and for merits, reflects the distinction between the evaluation that the IACHR must conduct to declare a petition admissible and the assessment necessary to establish a violation. 87. In the opinion of the Commission, the facts reported by the petitioners concerning the physical attack, the attempted confiscation of Mr. Vélez Restrepo’s camera by members of the Colombian armed forces as he was filming a peasant demonstration in Caquetá department, and the subsequent threats, attempted kidnapping, changes in his professional life, selfcensorship, and denial of access to information on the status of the investigations, should they be proven true during the merits stage, could tend to constitute a violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 5 (physical integrity) and 13 (freedom of thought and expression) of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of that instrument, to the detriment of Mr. 13