C. Deadline for submission 40. Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention establishes that for the petition to be declared admissible, it must have been submitted within six months from the date on which the interested person was notified of the final decision that exhausted domestic remedies. 41. In relation to petition 157-99, the parties indicated that notice of the judgment of the Constitutional Court of September 25, 1998, was given to the alleged victims on January 22, 1999. Given that the petition was filed on April 5, 1999, the IACHR considers that it satisfies the requirement provided for in Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention. 42. As for petition 12.214, the parties affirmed that the alleged victim was given notice of the resolution of the Constitutional Court of August 6, 1998, on March 26, 1999. In its initial briefs, the State asserted that in the note remitting the complaint of October 4, 1999, the IACHR did not indicate the date of its receipt. In this regard, it argued that there is a presumption that the petition was filed on the same date as the procedure was initiated, i.e. October 4, 1999, and it concluded that it should be declared time-barred. Regarding those positions, the IACHR clarifies that the record of petition 12.214 clearly shows that the original complaint was received September 20, 1999, accordingly it meets the requirement established at Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention. D. Duplication of procedures and res judicata 43. Article 46(1)(c) of the Convention provides that the admission of the petitions is subject to the matter “is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement” and Article 47(d) of the Convention stipulates that the Commission shall not admit a petition that substantially reproduces a previous petition or communication already examined by the Commission or another international organization. In the petitions considered in this report, the parties have not argued the existence of either of those two circumstances, nor can they be deduced from the record. E. Characterization of the facts 44. For purposes of admissibility, the Commission must decide whether the petition sets forth facts that could tend to establish a violation, as stipulated in Article 47(b) of the American Convention, if the petition is "manifestly groundless " or if it is "obviously out of order," as per Article 47(c). The standard of appreciation of these rules is different from that required for deciding the merits of a complaint. The Commission must render a prima facie evaluation to see whether the complaint establishes the apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention, and not to establish the existence of a violation. Such an examination is a summary analysis that does not entail any prejudice or anticipated opinion on the merits. 45. The Commission considers that the alleged dismissal of the alleged victims without due administrative process, as well as the alleged inefficacy of the judicial remedies pursued, due to the involvement of courts that lack autonomy, independent, and impartiality, could tend to establish a possible violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of that instrument, all to the detriment of José Castro Ballena and María Gracia Barriga Oré (P 157-99), and Carlos Alberto Canales Huapaya (P 12.214). 46. According to the parties’ assertions, alleged victims Luz Angélica Soria Cañas and Dusnara Amelia Campos Ramírez (P 157-99) have accepted the benefits provided for in Law 27803. On June 14, 2010, the IACHR asked the petitioner to submit information as to whether the facts that motivated submission of the complaint subsisted, in relation to those persons. By communication received July 26, 2010, the petitioner reaffirmed that Ms. Soria Cañas and Ms. Campos Ramírez “opted for the benefit of economic compensation, that is, they had to waive any other request for a claim, judicial reinstatement, or constitutional proceedings under way, as established by the Fourth Supplemental Provision of Law No. 27803 on collective 8