provided the necessary legal foundation for an eventual adjudication of compensation. 5 Accordingly, the Commission deems the requirements of Article 46 to have been met. b. Time period for submission of the petition 51. In accordance with Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention, 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 months rule ensures legal certainty and stability once a decision has been taken. 52. As indicated above, the communications which gave rise to petition 12.167 were received between June 5 and October 28, 1998. The decision of dismissal of the “recurso de hecho,” the final judgment at the domestic level, was issued by the Supreme Court on April 28, 1998. Consequently, the Commission deems the petition to have been timely filed. c. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 53. Article 46(1)(c) sets forth that admission of a petition is subject to the requirement that the subject “is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement,” and Article 47(d) of the Convention stipulates that the Commission shall not admit a petition which “is substantially the same as one previously studied by” it “or by another international organization.” In the present case, the parties have not claimed and the proceedings do not indicate the existence of either of these circumstances of inadmissibility. d. Characterization of the facts alleged 54. Article 47(b) of the American Convention sets forth that allegations which do not state facts tending to establish a violation shall not be admitted. In the present case, the State has argued in general terms that the petition should be found inadmissible for failing to state a cognizable claim. For the purposes of admissibility, the Commission must decide if the events can be characterized as a violation, as stipulated in Article 47(b) of the American Convention, or if the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order,” pursuant to subparagraph (c) of that Article. The standard for evaluating these requirements is different from that for deciding on the merits of a petition; the IACHR must conduct a prima facie evaluation to determine whether the petition establishes grounds for the apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention, but not to establish the existence of a violation.6 This determination involves a summary analysis that does not imply a prejudgment on the substance of the matter. In establishing two stages, one involving admissibility and the other the merits, the Commission’s Rules of Procedure reflect this distinction. 7 55. In this regard, the Commission finds for the purposes of admissibility that the petitioners have stated claims which, if consistent with other requirements and shown to be true, could tend to establish the violation of rights protected under the American Convention insofar as Articles 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 24 and 25 are concerned. 56. More specifically, the State argues that the petitioners have failed to state a cognizable claim under the American Declaration with respect to their allegations that the defendants were pressured to declare against their own interests. The State indicates that while Article 8 of the American Convention contains express guarantees against self-incrimination, the American Declaration–the instrument applicable at the time those statements were given–contains no express provision to that effect. Whether, or to what extent the more general due process protections and presumption of innocence set forth in the American Declaration may include 5 It may further be noted in this regard that, pursuant to the burden of proof set forth in Article 31 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure and the applicable case law, the party alleging non-exhaustion must raise specific rather than generic allegations concerning the remedies available and report on their effectiveness. The allegations of the State with respect to the efficacy of an action seeking compensation in the present case have been generic at best. See IACHR, Report Nº 72/01, Case 11.804, Juan Angel Greco (Argentina), October 10, 2001, at para. 49; Report Nº 52/97, Case 11.218, Arges Sequeira Mangas (Nicaragua), Annual Report of the IACHR 1997, para. 95. 6 IACHR, Report Nº 128/01, Herrera and Vargas [“La Nación”] (Costa Rica), Case 12.367, Dec. 3, 2001, para. 50. 7 Id. 10