an appropriate remedy for the State to hear the petitioners’ claims regarding the alleged infringement of the right to defense and administrative due process, and to adopt measures that reversed the infringed legal situation; the circumstances during the time when the events took place; 24 and the general uncertainty about the remedies as indicated by the Inter-American Court, the Commission believes, without prejudice to the merits of the case, that the requirement set forth in Article 46.1 of the Convention has been met. C. Submission Deadline 62. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 46.1 of the Convention, in order for a petition to be admitted, it must be submitted within the stipulated deadline, i.e. six months from the date when the alleged injured party whose rights have been violated has been notified of the final decision issued at the national level. The rule of six months guarantees legal certainty and stability once a decision has been adopted. 63. In this case, the Commission observes that the petition was submitted to the Commission on February 19, 1996, i.e. simultaneously with the occurrence of the dismissals; and therefore before decision on the motions filed by the petitioners and which shall be considered supra. In this regard, the Commission concludes that the present petition meets the requirement set forth in Article 46.1.b of the Convention. D. Duplication of Procedures 64. The file does not show that the subject of the petition is pending in any other international proceeding or that it has been previously decided by the InterAmerican Commission. Therefore, the requirements set forth in Articles 46.1.c and 47.d are deemed met. E. Characterization of the Alleged Facts 65. As the Commission has indicated in other cases, at this stage in the proceeding, it is not appropriate to verify whether or not the American Convention has been violated. For the purposes of admissibility, the IACHR must simply decide if the allegations describe facts that could be characterized as a violation of the American Convention, as stipulated in article 47.b, and if the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order,” as per line (c) of that same article. The standard for making these determinations is different than the one required to decide on the merits of the complaint. During this phase, the IACHR must make a prima facie evaluation that does not imply a prior proceeding or advancing an opinion on the merits. Its own Regulations reflect this distinction between the evaluation that must be made in order to declare the petition admissible and the one required to determine if the State’s responsibility can be verified, by establishing clearly differentiated stages for the study of admissibility and of merits. 66. The petitioners state that the petition presents facts that prima facie characterize violations of their rights. They state that the legislation on which the 24 The Inter-American Court has determined in its jurisprudence that on the date of the events (March 1997 to November 2000) the Constitutional Court “was dismantled and disqualified from exercising its jurisdiction appropriately, particularly with regard to controlling constitutionality […] and the consequent examination of whether the State’s conduct was in harmony with the Constitution.” Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of the Constitutional Court. Judgment of January 31, 2001, Series C No. 71, para. 112. 15