5 24. Even though the Peruvian State mentioned that the alleged victim should have filed a reinstatement labor suit or a compliance action, it did not discuss the suitability of the amparo proceeding for the acts alleged in the petition to be remedied by the bodies of the domestic court system prior to being heard by this international body. Additionally, the IACHR notes that in the May 8, 1998 judgment, the Constitutional Court of Peru found the amparo suit brought by the alleged victim to be admissible, but that no violation of constitutional guarantees had been proven. This indicates that the supreme body of constitutional law in Peru did not refute the suitability of the amparo proceeding, but rather ruled on the merits of the controversy brought between Mr. Héctor Fidel Cordero and the respondent.2 25. Based on the above-mentioned considerations, the IACHR overrules the preliminary objection made by the Peruvian State and finds that domestic remedies were exhausted by Mr. Héctor Fidel Cordero through the Constitutional Court judgment of May 8, 1998. C. Deadline for Submission of the Petition 26. Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention provides that in order for a petition to be found admissible, it must have been lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the interested party was notified of the final judgment that exhausted domestic remedies. 27. Based on the finding in paragraph 25 above, domestic remedies were exhausted by means of the Constitutional Court judgment on May 8, 1998. The parties’ submissions indicate that that judgment was served upon the alleged victim on July 31, 1998. Given that the instant petition was received by the IACHR on November 11, 1998, it fulfills the admissibility requirement set forth in Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention. D. Duplication of international proceedings and res judicata 28. Article 46(1)(c) of the Convention provides that for a petition to be admissible, the subject must “not be pending in another international proceeding for settlement” and, in article 47(d) of the Convention, it is stipulated that the Commission shall not admit the petition if it is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization. In the instant case, the parties have not raised the existence of any of those two circumstances of inadmissibility, nor can either one be inferred from the record in the case file. E. Characterization of the alleged facts 29. For the purposes of admissibility, the Commission must decide whether or not the petition states facts that could tend to establish a violation of rights as stipulated in Article 47(b) of the American Convention and whether or not the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order,” as provided in subparagraph c) of the same article. The rule governing evaluation of these particulars is different from the one required to decide on the merits of a complaint. The Commission must conduct a prima facie evaluation to examine whether the complaint substantiates the apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention and not to establish the 2 The information appearing in the case file of the petition indicates that on September 24, 1997 the Special Chamber for Public Law of the Superior Court of Lima had found the amparo claim inadmissible. In its judgment on the appeal for constitutional relief dated May 8, 1998, the Constitutional Court overturned said decision of inadmissibility and “amending it found the amparo action to be GROUNDLESS.” See response submitted by the Peruvian State on August 4, 2008, annexes, judgment of the Constitutional Court, Case File No. 1051-97-AA/TC, single operative paragraph. The italics and bold and uppercase letters match the original text.