time, military operations were concentrated in Quiché, Huehuetenango, Chimaltenango, Alta and Baja Verapaz, the southern coast, and Guatemala City. Approximately 91% of the violations recorded by the Commission for Historical Clarifications happened during those years. 61 87. The Commission should consider that the internal armed conflict ended with the signing of the Peace Accords, which opened up the possibility of seeking to clear up the facts of the violations perpetrated in the context of the conflict. Nonetheless, as has been observed, the effects in terms of the lack of effectiveness of the domestic remedies extend to the present, because at the time the petition was filed with the Inter-American Commission, several criminal proceedings were continuing in the initial stage. 88. The rule of a reasonable time for filing petitions with the inter-American human rights system must be analyzed in each case, mindful of the activity of the victims’ next-of-kin to seek justice, the conduct of the state, and the situation and context in which the alleged violation occurred. 89. Therefore, in view of the context and characteristics of the instant case, as well as the fact that several investigations and judicial proceedings are still pending, the Commission considers that the petition was presented within a reasonable time, and that the admissibility requirement referring to the time for submission has been met. 3. Duplication of international procedures 90. It does not appear from the record that the petition is pending before any other international procedure, nor that it reproduces a petition already examined by this or any other international body. Accordingly, the requirements established at Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention have been satisfied. 4. Characterization of the facts alleged 91. For the purposes of admissibility, the Commission should decide whether the facts alleged tend to establish a violation of rights, as stipulated in Article 47(b) of the American Convention, or whether the petition is "manifestly groundless" or "obviously out of order” as per Article 47(c). The standard of appreciation of those requirements differs from that used to rule on the merits; the Commission must make a prima facie evaluation to determine whether the petition lays a foundation for the possible or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention, but not to establish the existence of a violation of rights. This determination constitutes a primary analysis, which does not entail prejudging the merits of the case. 92. In the instant petition, the petitioners allege a series of events that they argue were carried out for the purpose of exterminating the indigenous community of Río Negro. The facts they invoke include the following: a) In early 1980, seven representatives of the community had been victims of forced disappearance. b) On March 4, 1980, seven members of the community had been extrajudicially executed in the community of Río Negro. c) On February 13, 1982, in the community of Xococ, approximately 89 members of the community of Río Negro had been extrajudicially executed. Prior to the execution, the children had been tortured and the women raped. 61 IACHR, Admissibility Report No. 7/07, Petition 208-05, Florencio Chitay, Nech et al., Guatemala, February 27, 2007, para. 55. 19