regarding recent measures taken by the State or progress that would lead to clarification of the facts and to punishing those responsible. The Guatemalan State confines itself to mentioning that the case is in the investigation stage, but does not present specific information that would allow the conclusion that the investigation has the suitability and effectiveness needed to clarify the facts. 34. The Commission establishes, for purposes of admissibility, that there has been an unwarranted delay on the part of Guatemalan authorities regarding the facts reported. As a result, the exception to the exhaustion of domestic remedies provided in Article 46.2.c of the American Convention is applicable. C. Deadline for submitting the petition 35. Regarding the requirement indicated in Article 46.1.b of the Convention according to which the petition must be submitted within a period of six months of when the victim is notified of the final decision that exhausted the domestic remedies, the Commission feels that that deadline is not applicable either because the petition was submitted within a reasonable period as indicated in Article 32.2 of its Rules of Procedure for cases in which no final decision has been handed down prior to submission of the petition. D. Duplication of proceedings and international res judicata 36. The case file does not indicate that the subject of the petition is pending settlement in any other international proceeding or that it reproduces a petition already examined by this or any other international body. Therefore, it is appropriate to rule that the requirements established in Articles 46.1.c and 47.d of the Convention have been met. E. Characterization of the alleged facts 37. The Commission feels it is not appropriate at this stage of the proceeding to decide whether or not the alleged violations occurred to the detriment of the alleged victims. For purposes of admissibility, at this point the IACHR must only decide whether facts have been presented that, if proven, would tend to establish 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. 38. The standard for assessing these points is different from that required to rule on the merits of a complaint. The IACHR must perform a prima facie evaluation and determine whether the complaint provides the basis for the apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the American Convention, but need not establish the existence of that violation.2 At this stage, it should perform a summary analysis that does not involve any prejudgment or advance opinion on the merits. The IACHR Rules of Procedure themselves, by establishing an admissibility phase and a merits phase, reflects this distinction between the evaluation that the Inter-American Commission must carry out to declare a petition admissible and that required to establish whether a violation attributable to the State has been committed.3 39. In this respect, the IACHR feels that the facts alleged regarding Florentín Gudiel Ramos, should they be true, would tend to establish a potential violation of the rights guaranteed in Article 4 of the American Convention, consistent with the general obligation to respect and guarantee rights as provided in Article 1.1 of that international instrument. In addition, it decides to declare the case admissible regarding the alleged violation of the rights established 2 See IACHR, Report No. 128/01, Case 12.367, Mauricio Herrera Ulloa and Fernán Vargas Rohrmoser of “La Nación” Newspaper (Costa Rica), December 3, 2001, para. 50; Report No. 4/04, Petition 12.324, Rubén Luis Godoy (Argentina), February 24, 2004, para. 43; Report No. 32/07, Petition 429-05, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia et al. (Chile), April 23, 2007, para. 54. 3 See IACHR, Report No. 31/03, Case 12.195, Mario Alberto Jara Oñate et al. (Chile), March 7, 2003, para. 41; Report No. 4/04, Petition 12.324, Rubén Luis Godoy (Argentina), February 24, 2004, para. 43; Petition 429-05, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia et al. (Chile), April 23, 2007, para. 54; Petition 581-05, Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe (Chile), May 2, 2007, para. 46. 6