Commission “shall consider the date on which the alleged violation of rights occurred and the circumstances of each case….”12 40. In the instant case, the Commission ruled supra on the applicability to the situation of the exception to the rule on exhausting domestic remedies. Therefore, the InterAmerican Commission must determine whether the petition was submitted within a reasonable time, as established by the provision cited. 41. In keeping with the foregoing paragraphs, as the petition was lodged on March 28, 2000, almost two years after the crime, the Commission considers that the submission was within the standards of reasonableness to which the provision in question refers, mindful of the period elapsed since the crime took place, without the domestic judicial proceeding in relation to it going forward, which, as said, constitutes a clear exception to the prior exhaustion requirement, without prejudice to the analysis that this body will perform in relation to the possible violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. 4. Duplication of procedures and international res judicata 42. It does not appear from the record that the subject matter of the petition is pending before any other international procedure for settlement, nor that it reproduces a petition already examined by this or another international organ. Therefore, it should be considered that the requirements established in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention have been met. 5. Characterization of the facts alleged 43. For purposes of admissibility, the IACHR must decide whether facts are stated that tend to establish a violation, as stipulated in Article 47(b) of the American Convention, and whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order,” as described in Article 47(c). 44. The standard of appreciation of these rules is different from that for deciding on the merits of a complaint. The IACHR must undertake a prima facie evaluation to analyze whether the complaint states the basis for an apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention, not to determine whether there has been a violation. Such an examination is a summary analysis that does not imply prejudging or anticipating an opinion on the merits.13 As we encounter, in this hypothesis, an account that describes a possible violation of basic rights such as the rights to life, equality before the law, judicial guarantees, access to justice, and women’s rights, inherent to the alleged victim, all in relation to the general obligation contained in Article 1(1) of the American Convention, it is proper to undertake a study of this dispute. 45. The Commission does not find that the petition is “manifestly groundless” or that it is “obviously out of order.” Accordingly, the IACHR considers that, prima facie, the petitioners have shown what is required to consider it admissible. 46. Nonetheless, the petitioners allege that the State breached its obligation contained in Article 2 of the American Convention regarding the duty to adopt provisions of domestic law to ensure respect for the rights contained in the Convention. According to the 12 IACHR, Report No. 31/ 99, Case 11,763, Plan de Sánchez Massacre, Admissibility, March 11, 1999. 13 IACHR, Report No. 21/04, Petition 12,190, Admissibility, José Luis Tapia González et al., Chile, February 24, 2004, para. 33.