Convention. It should be noted that the pertinent causes and effects that have prevented the exhaustion of domestic remedies in this case will be analyzed in the report on the merits of the controversy approved by the Commission in order to determine if they do constitute violations of the American Convention. C. Deadline for submitting the petition 36. Under the provisions of Article 46.1(b) of the Convention, for a petition to be considered admissible it must be filed within a period of 6 months starting with the date on which the interested party was notified of the final judgment that exhausted domestic jurisdiction. This rule is not applicable when the Commission finds that any of the exceptions to the exhaustion of domestic remedies established in Article 46.2 of the Convention has come into play. In those instances, the Commission must determine whether the petition was filed within a reasonable period of time in accordance with Article 32 of its Rules of Procedure. 37. The Commission concluded that in the foregoing case there was an unwarranted delay in the resolution of the petitions for domestic remedies in accordance with the provisions of Article 46.2 (c) of the Convention. The legal remedies outlined in the previous section were filed on August 24, 2005, October 4, 2005, and on June 21, 2006. The petitioner expected the legal remedies to have been resolved within the legal deadlines but they remain pending with no decision issued to date. Under these circumstances, the Commission considers that the petition was submitted within a reasonable period of time. D. Duplication of proceedings and international res judicata 38. Article 46.1 (c) of the Convention establishes that the admissibility of a petition is subject to the requirement that the matter "is not pending in any other international proceeding” and Article 47 (d) of the Convention stipulates that the Commission will not admit a petition that is substantially the same as a previous petition or communication already examined by the Commission or by another international organization. In this case, the record indicates that neither of those circumstances that would render the petition inadmissible exist. E. Characterization of the alleged facts 39. For purposes of admissibility, the Commission must decide if the petition includes events that could constitute a violation as established in Article 47 (b) of the American Convention, if the petition is “manifestly unfounded,” or if its “lack of merit is evident” as established in item (c) of the same article. The standard of measurement of these extremes is different than the standard required to decide on the merits of a claim. The Commission must carry out a prima facie evaluation to determine if the complaint substantiates the apparent or potential violation of a right protected by the Convention and not to establish the existence of a violation. That examination is a brief analysis that does not imply prejudging or advancing an opinion on the merits of the case. 40. The Commission considers that should the events described by the petitioner be proven true with regard to the restriction his political rights through an administrative action without the issuance of a definitive sentence, as well as the alleged irregularities in the domestic proceedings and the delay in the resolution of the petitions filed for domestic remedies, they could constitute violations of the rights protected by Articles 23,8, 25 and 1.1 of the American Convention. 41. Likewise, by virtue of the principle of iura novit curia, the IACHR considers that given the fact that the complaint deals with a political disqualification imposed as a sanction by means of a law that authorizes the administrative authority to do so absent a criminal proceeding, the facts could also constitute a violation to the state’s obligation established in Article 2 of the ACHR. 7