28. Therefore, without prejudging the merits of the matter, the Commission finds that, prima facie, the State is guilty of unwarranted delay and, therefore, the exception recognized in Article 46 (2) (c) of the American Convention applies. C. Timeliness of the petition 29. Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention establishes that in order for a petition to be declared admissible it must be presented within six months counted from the date on which the petitioner was notified of the final decision that exhausted remedies in the domestic jurisdiction. This rule shall not apply when the Commission finds that one or more of the exceptions to the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies set forth in Article 46(2) of the Convention are applicable. In such cases, the Commission must determine whether the petition was presented within a reasonable time, in accordance with Article 32 of its Rules of Procedure. 30. As noted in paragraphs 27 to 28 above, the Commission concluded that in this case there has been an unwarranted delay, as envisaged at Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention. The original petition was launched on October 30, 2000. Bearing in mind the immediacy that should characterize the State's response to a report of a person's disappearance and the State's alleged failure effectively to provide such a response, as well as the continuing nature of the alleged violation, the Commission finds that the petition was lodged within a reasonable time. D. Duplication of international proceedings and res judicata 31. Article 46(1)(c) provides that the admissibility of petitions is subject to the requirement that the subject “is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement,” while Article 47(d) of the Convention stipulates that the Commission shall not admit a petition that “is substantially the same as one previously studied” by the Commission or by another international organization. In the case, the parties have not shown the existence of either of those two circumstances, nor can they be deduced from the record. E. Colorable claim 32. For purposes of admissibility, the Commission must decide whether the petition states facts that tend to establish a violation, as stipulated in Article 47(b) of the American Convention, whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or whether it is "obviously out of order,” as per Article 47(c). The standard of appreciation of these measures is different from that required to decide on the merits of a complaint. The Commission must perform a prima facie evaluation to examine whether the complaint establishes a basis for an apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention and not to establish the existence of a violation. Such a review is a summary analysis that does not imply any pre-judging or any early formation of an opinion on the merits. 33. Neither the American Convention nor the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR require that the petition identify the specific rights allegedly violated by the State in a matter submitted to the Commission, though the petitioners may do so. It is up to the Commission, based on the case-law of the system, to determine in its admissibility reports which provision of the relevant inter-American instruments is applicable or could be established as having been violated, if the facts alleged are sufficiently proven. 34. The IACHR finds that the alleged facts could amount to violations of the rights to juridical personality, life, humane treatment, personal liberty, personality, a fair trial, and judicial protection, enshrined in Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 25 of the Convention, in connection with Article 1(1) of that instrument. In addition, bearing in mind its authority to offer a legal opinion on facts submitted to it, the Commission believes it appropriate in the section on merits to examine how the investigation was handled, taking into account the right to equal protection of the law and the principle of nondiscrimination established in Articles 24 and 1 (1) of the American Convention. Finally, the Commission also considers it appropriate to evaluate in 5