5 29. In cases of alleged noncompliance with judicial decisions, the IACHR has maintained that, since the situation is reported under mechanisms provided for in domestic legislation, it is up to the 5 competent judicial organ to adopt the necessary measures to ensure execution of the decision. In this case, it is evident that Oscar Muelle Flores not only reported the alleged failure to carry out the judgment to the pertinent judicial authorities, but that he also initiated judicial actions designed to correct this situation and has participated actively in the execution process before the 38th Civil Court of Lima, his last intervention in the process was the submission of an appeal on May 17, 2010, against the nullifying decision issued by aforementioned Court on April 26, 2010. Notwithstanding the above, the proceeding to enforce execution of the Supreme Court’s final judgment of February 2, 1993 is still in process, according to the petitioner, due to deficiencies attributed to the State. In its March 1, 2010 memorial, the State confirmed that as of April 6, 2009, that said proceeding was still open, but it did not indicate the steps planned or being taken to conclude it, just stating that further information would be submitted to the Commission. 30. Based on the aforesaid considerations, the Commission considers that the petitioner availed himself of the domestic remedies available to obtain execution of judgment, without any results to date; hence it finds that there has been an unwarranted delay pursuant to the terms of Article 2(c) of the American Convention. C. Deadline for presentation 31. Article 46.1(b) of the Convention establishes that in order for a petition to be declared admissible, it must be lodged within a period of six months following the date on which the complainant was notified of the final judgment. This rule does not apply when the Commission finds that any of the exceptions to exhaustion of domestic remedies established in Article 46.2 of the Convention apply. In such cases, the Commission must determine whether the petition was presented within a reasonable period of time in accordance with Article 32 of its Rules of Procedure. 32. Taking into account the active role played by the alleged victim in the proceedings for execution of judgment and that the alleged violation of the right to judicial protection continued up to the date of presentation of the petition, the IACHR considers that the requirement stipulated in Article 46.1(b) of the American Convention has been met. D. Duplication of procedures and res judicata 33. Article 46.1(c) of the Convention establishes that petitions are subject to the requirement that the subject “is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement” and Article 47.d of the Convention establishes that the Commission shall consider inadmissible any petition that is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization. In the present case, the parties have not referred to either of these two circumstances, nor can they be inferred from the case file. E. Characterization of the alleged facts 34. For admissibility purposes, the Commission must decide wether the petition states facts that tend to establish a violation, as stipulated in Article 47.b of the American Convention, and if the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order,” in accordance with subparagraph (c) of that Article. The standard for assessment of these points of law is different from that required to decide on the merits of a petition. The Commission must conduct a prima facie evaluation to determine whether the petition establishes the basis for an apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention, but not whether it establishes the existence of a violation. This evaluation involves a summary analysis that does not entail a prejudgment or advance opinion on the merits. 5 IACHR, Report Nº 43/09, Petition 1166-05, Peru, Jorge Rafael Valdivia Ruiz, March 27, 2009, para. 38. 5