31. As indicated earlier,15 on September 9, 2004, the Supreme Court of Chile notified the alleged victim of the decision denying his appeal for nullification, a decision that is not subject to review. In accordance with the provisions of Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention, the deadline for submitting a petition to the IACHR was March 9, 2005. The petition in this case was received by the IACHR on March 4, 2005. 32. Thus, the IACHR concludes that the petition satisfies the requirement established in Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention. 3. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 33. The petition file contains no information that might lead to a determination that the petition submitted is pending another international proceeding. Nor is there anything that would indicate that this petition duplicates a petition previously examined by the IACHR. Thus, this body concludes that the requirements under Articles 46(1)(c) y 47(d) of the American Convention have been met. 4. Characterization of the facts 34. In the instant case, the State alleged that the petition is inadmissible because the facts described therein do not characterize violations of rights protected by the Convention. Thus, it asked the IACHR to reject the petition pursuant to Article 47(b) and (c) of the American Convention. 35. It is not the Commission’s task at this stage of the proceeding to decide whether or not the alleged violations of the alleged victim’s rights to freedom of thought and expression and to equal protection of the law actually occurred. For purposes of admissibility, the IACHR must decide at this stage only whether the petition presents facts that, if proven, could characterize violations of the American Convention, as stipulated in Article 47(b) thereof, and whether the petition is "manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order” in accordance with paragraph c of the same article. 36. The criterion for assessing these points is different from that required to issue an opinion on the merits of the petition. The IACHR must make a prima facie assessment and determine whether the petition provides the basis for the apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the American Convention, not establish the existence of that violation.16 At this stage of the proceeding, it must perform a summary analysis that does not imply any prejudgment or preliminary opinion on the merits. 37. The Inter-American Commission has established that it is not competent to review decisions issued by domestic courts acting within the sphere of their competence and applying due judicial guarantees. The IACHR cannot act as an appeals court to review supposed errors of law and of fact that domestic courts may have made when acting within the limits of their competence. Nonetheless, within the limits of its mandate to guarantee the observance of the rights enshrined in the Convention, the Inter-American Commission is in fact competent to declare a petition admissible and find on the basis thereof when it refers to See paragraph 27 of this report. 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. 15 16 6