47. In this regard the State argues that the petition is inadmissible because it was submitted in September, 2005, i.e., after the time period established by Articles 46(1)(b) and 47(a) of the American Convention and Article 32(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure had expired. 48. A fact undisputed by the parties is that on October 13, 2004, the Court of Appeals of Temuco decided the last appeal lodged by Messrs. and Mme. Juan Patricio Marileo Sanabria, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñan and Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Lican in the trial against them. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention, the deadline to lodge a complaint before the IACHR expired on April 13, 2005. In the instant case, the petition or communication of the petitioners was received by the IACHR on April 13, 2005. 49. In view of the aforementioned, the IACHR rejects the argument of the State of Chile that the petition is inadmissible because it was submitted in untimely fashion. The six-month time period established by Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention begins to run from the date in which the alleged victim of a human rights violation was notified of the final judgment until the date on which the petition is filed with the IACHR, and not the date on which the petition is forwarded to the respective state. 50. Therefore, the IACHR concludes that the petition meets the requirement established by Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention. 3. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 51. The record of the petition does not contain any information leading to a determination that the complaint is pending in another international proceeding. There are no reasons, either, to believe that this petition is substantially the same as one previously examined by the IACHR. Therefore, the IACHR concludes that the requirements established by Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the American Convention have been met. 4. Characterization of the facts 52. In the instant case, the State claimed that the facts described do not constitute violations of rights protected by the Convention, and hence requested, pursuant to Article 47(b) and (c) of the Convention, that the IACHR deny the petition. 53. It is the opinion of the Commission that it is not appropriate, at this stage of the proceeding, to decide whether the alleged violations of the right to a fair trial and to be free from the application of ex post facto laws did indeed occur. For the purposes of admissibility, the IACHR at this time must only decide, pursuant to Article 47(b) of the American Convention, whether facts have been put forward that, should they be proven, would constitute violations of same, and, pursuant to paragraph c of the same article, whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order.” 54. The criterion to analyze these points is different from the one required to decide on the merits of a complaint. The IACHR must make a prima facie evaluation and determine if the complaint provides grounds for an apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the American Convention, although not whether the violation has in fact occurred. 10 At the current stage what is appropriate is to make a concise analysis that does not entail a prejudgment or the advance of an opinion on the merits. The Inter-American Commission’s Rules of Procedure themselves, in establishing stage of admissibility and another one for the merits, reflects this distinction between the evaluation that the Inter-American Commission must carry out to 10 See IACHR, Report N° 128/01, Case 12.367, Herrera and Vargas (La Nación), Costa Rica, December 3, 2001, paragraph 50. See IACHR, Report N° 4/04, Petition 12.324, Rubén Luis Godoy, Argentina, February 24, 2004, paragraph 43. 8