petition or communication is lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the party alleging violation of his rights was notified of the final judgment at the national level. The six-month rule guarantees legal certainty and stability once the decision has been adopted. 48. Under Article 32.2 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, in those cases in which the exceptions to the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies are applicable, the petition shall be presented within a reasonable period of time, as determined by the Commission. Under said Article, the Commission "shall consider the date on which the alleged violation of rights occurred and the circumstances of each case." 49. With regard to the petition to be examined, the Commission has established applicability of the exception regarding lack of access to the remedies referred to in Article 46.2.b and must therefore evaluate whether the petition was presented within a reasonable period in accordance with the specific circumstances of the case at hand. In this regard, by virtue of the particular circumstances in which the petition was submitted, which include allegations of arbitrary detention, mistreatment, and torture, and considering that the petitioner argues that he was not in a position to seek remedies in Panama and had instead to file complaints with the Panamanian Embassy in Ecuador (according to the petitioner, in February 2004) and given that the State has provided no details about any criminal proceedings undertaken in connection with these complaints, the Commission finds that the petition under consideration was filed within a reasonable period. 4. Duplication of procedures and international res judicata 50. There is no suggestion in the case file that the subject of the petition or communication is pending in another international proceeding for settlement, nor that the petition or communication is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization. Accordingly, the requirements established in Articles 46.1.c and 47.d of the American Convention shall be deemed to have been met. 5. Characterization of the facts alleged 51. For purposes of admissibility, the Commission shall decide whether the petition or communication does state facts that tend to establish a violation of the rights guaranteed by this Convention, as stated in Article 47.b of the American Convention, if the statements of the petitioner or of the state indicate that the petition or communication is manifestly groundless or obviously out of order, according to paragraph (c) of the same Article. 52. The standard for assessing these criteria is different from the standard required for deciding on the merits of a complaint. The Commission must carry out a “prima facie” assessment so as to examine whether the complaint establishes the apparent or potential violation of a right that is guaranteed under the Convention and not so as to establish the existence of a violation. Such an examination is a summary analysis that does not imply any prejudice or preliminary opinion on the merits.15 53. The Commission does not find that the petition is “manifestly groundless” or that it is “obviously out of order”. As a result, the Commission considers that, prima facie, the petitioner has met the criteria set forth in Article 47.b and c. 54. Mr. Vélez Loor was incarcerated pursuant to resolution Nº 7306 dated December 6, 2002 of the National Office of Migration (Dirección Nacional de Migración), which sentenced him to two years in prison, without a trial or even a hearing, on the basis of the provisions of article 67 of Decree law Nº 16 of June 20, 1960 (supra para. 20). This Decree Law provides that anyone who is a recidivist in clandestinely entering Panama without the appropriate documentation will be sentenced to two years of “agricultural work in the Penal colony in Coiba” and will be obliged to leave the country at the end of that period. On July 29th, the National Director of Migration, by means of note Nº DNMYN-AL-274-03 notified that if Mr. Vélez was in possession of the respective ticket or airline ticket to leave Panama, Resolution Nº 736 would be rendered without effect. The Ecuadorian Embassy in Panama, however, 15 IACHR, Admissibility Report Nº 21/04, Petition 12.190, José Luís Tapia González et al., (Chile), February 24, 2004, para. 33. 10