a sanction on the alleged victim. Consequently, in view of the information available and the failure of the State to contradict that information, the Commission feels that for purposes of admissibility the aforementioned remedy would be ineffective, therefore the alleged victim could not be required to exhaust it. 2. Timeliness of the petition 23. The American Convention requires that in order for a petition to be admitted by the Commission, it must be submitted within six months of the date on which the party alleging the violation of his rights was notified of the final judgment. The Commission notes that the Supreme Court of Justice imposed a sanction on the alleged victim through its decision of May 6, 2005 and the petitioner indicated that he was notified of this decision on June 6, 2005. Therefore, as the State has not disputed the petitioner’s assertions and given that the petition was received by the IACHR on December 5, 2005, the Commission deems the requirement established by Article 46.1 b) of the American Convention to have been met. 3. Duplication of proceedings and international res judicata 24. The file does not indicate that the subject of the petition is pending in any other international proceeding nor that it reproduces a petition already examined by this or any other international body. Thus, the requirements established in Articles 46.1 c) and 47 d) of the American Convention should be considered to have been met. 4. Colorable claims 25. For the purposes of admissibility, the Commission must decide whether the petition states facts that could tend to establish a violation, as stipulated in Article 47 b) of that instrument, or whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order,” in accordance with paragraph c) of that article. The standard for evaluating these requirements is different from that used to rule on the merits of a petition. The IACHR must undertake a prima facie evaluation to determine whether the complaint demonstrates an apparent or potential violation of a right protected by the American Convention, but not whether such a violation occurred. Such an evaluation is a summary review that does not prejudice or advance an opinion on the merits. 26. Neither the American Convention nor the IACHR Rules of Procedure requires petitioners to identify the specific rights allegedly violated by the State in the matter submitted to the Commission, even though the petitioners may do so. However, it is the duty of the Commission, based on the system’s jurisprudence, to determine in its admissibility report which provision of the relevant Inter-American instruments is applicable and could be concluded to have been violated, should the alleged facts be proven by means of sufficient evidence and legal arguments. 27. According to the information provided by the petitioner, the Commission considers that the complaint regarding the imposition of a disciplinary measure against Judge Daniel Urrutia as a result of having sent the Supreme Court of Justice his ideas in an academic paper, subject to sanction under Article 323(4) of the Organic Code of Courts prohibiting “publishing, without authorization from the President of the Supreme Court, writings in defense of one’s official conduct or attacking in any way the conduct of other judges or magistrates,” could constitute, upon study of the merits, a violation of Article 13 of the American Convention in connection with Articles 1 and 2 of the same instrument. 28. The Commission considers necessary to analyze in a merits stage whether the standard applied is consistent with the principle of legality, a principle that must be observed in the context of disciplinary proceedings,11 since otherwise this could constitute a violation of Article 9 of the Convention. Additionally, in a merits stage, the Commission will examine whether the procedures available provided the 11 IACHR, Guarantees for the Independence of Justice Operators, OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 44, adopted 5 December 2013, para. 207. 5