62. In this regard, the Commission notes that the alleged victims pursued all remedies available to them—given that during the first stages of the process they were held incommunicado and unable to file legal actions—including those of appeal and cassation, presenting allegations of procedural irregularities and the fact that the charges were based on illegally obtained evidence. All these remedies were rejected, which meant that after the petition was presented, the conviction would remain final. In these circumstances, the Commission considers that the alleged victims were not required to have filed an appeal of the final criminal judgment, which is of an extraordinary nature and which in any case would have been based on the same claims that had already been presented unsuccessfully through ordinary appeals. C. Deadline for Filing the Petition 63. Article 46.1 b) of the Convention establishes that for the petition to be declared admissible, it must have been filed within six calendar months dating from the time the interested party was notified of the final decision exhausting domestic jurisdiction. This rule does not apply when the Commission finds one of the exceptions to the exhaustion of domestic remedies protected in Article 46.2 of the Convention. In such cases, the Commission must determine whether the petition was filed within a reasonable time frame, in accordance with Article 32 of its Rules of Procedure. 64. Taking into account that the petition was filed on January 8, 2003, and that the events it alleges occurred beginning on December 18, 2001—a lapse of time in which these events were reported on various occasions, with the expectation that the State would undertake an investigation—the Commission considers that the case was presented within a reasonable time frame. D. Duplication of Procedures and Res Iudicata 65. Article 46.1 c) of the Convention states that the admission of petitions is subject to the matter “not pending in another international proceeding for settlement,” and Article 47 of the Convention prescribes that the Commission will not admit a petition or communication that is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization. In this case, the parties have not argued that either of these two circumstances of inadmissibility exists, nor can this be deduced from the file. E. Characterization of the Alleged Events 66. For admissibility purposes, the Commission must decide whether the petition lays out facts that could constitute a violation, as prescribed in Article 47.b of the American Convention, or if it is “manifestly groundless or obviously out of order,” according to paragraph c) of the same article. The standard for assessing these extremes differs from that used to decide the merits of a case. The Commission must conduct a prima facie evaluation to examine whether the petition lays the foundation of an apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention, not to establish that a violation exists. This examination is a summary analysis that does not imply prejudice or an advance opinion on the merits. 67. The Commission notes in the first place that the petitioner alleged the purported violation of Articles 4, 5, 6, and 10 of the Inter-American Convention March 11, 2004, Costa Rica, para. 45; IACHR, Report No. 52/00. Cases 11.830 and 12.038 (Dismissed Workers of Congress), June 15, 2000, Peru, para. 21. 11