the Petitioner exhausted domestic remedies as prescribed by Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention. 2. Timeliness of the petition 47. Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention prescribes that a petition must be presented in a timely manner to be admitted, namely, within six months from the date on which the complaining party was notified of the final judgment at the domestic level. The six-month rule ensures legal certainty and stability once a decision has been taken. 48. The Petitioner contends that he effectively exhausted all available domestic remedies after the dismissal of his final interlocutory objection in June 2003. Having regard for the Commission’s finding on the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Commission concludes that the petition was presented in a timely manner in accordance with Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention. 3. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 49. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the subject matter of the petition is pending in another international proceeding for settlement, or is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the requirements established in Article 46(1)(c) are met. 4. Characterization 50. The parties have joined issue on the question of whether the petition discloses colorable claims. To determine admissibility, the Commission must decide whether the petition describes facts that could tend to establish a violation, as required by Article 47(b) of the American Convention. As a preliminary consideration, the Commission notes that the Petitioner has not advanced a prima facie case to support his general claim that the State violated his rights under Article 24 of the American Convention. Having regard for the record before the it, the Commission considers that the petitioner has not presented any colorable violation of Article 24 of the American Convention. 51. The standard of evaluation regarding the admissibility of a petition is different from that which applies in deciding on the merits of a complaint. The Commission must conduct a prima facie assessment to determine whether the complaint entails an apparent or potential violation of a right protected by the Convention and is not at this stage establishing the existence of such a violation. This examination is a summary analysis that neither prejudges nor offers an opinion on the merits. 52. The claims alleging violations of the American Convention revolve around the prosecution and conviction of Mr. Alibux after indictment by the National Assembly. Principally, the Petitioner contends that he was prosecuted under an ex post facto law, and that he was denied any recourse to challenge the law or the ensuing criminal proceedings. Concomitantly, the Petitioner contends that his right to fair trial was prejudiced by certain public utterances by the President of Suriname. He also contends that his freedom of movement was violated when he was prevented from traveling out of Suriname for medical reasons. The State requested the Commission to 9