violation of rights occurred and the circumstances of each case in order to determine whether the petition was filed within a reasonable time frame. 44. In the instant case, the exception to exhaustion of domestic remedies established in Article 46(2) of the Convention was applicable, and according the petitioner’s briefs, the events described in the petition started on July 1, 2003. The petition was brought before the Commission on June 7, 2004. Considering the circumstances of the case, including the fact that two constitutionality challenges were filed by the petitioner and are still pending, the IACHR finds that this petition was submitted within a reasonable time. 3. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 45. Article 46(1)(c) of the Convention establishes that in order to be admissible, the subject of the petition “must not be pending in another international proceeding for settlement,” and Article 47(d) stipulates that it must not be “substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization.” In the instant case, the parties do not allege, nor does it appear in the record, that either of these conditions of inadmissibility is present. 4. Characterization of the facts alleged 46. Article 47(b) of the Convention establishes that the Commission shall declare inadmissible any petition or communication that “does not state facts that tend to establish a violation of the rights guaranteed by this Convention.” At this stage of the proceedings it is not appropriate for the Commission to state whether or not the alleged violations of the American Convention actually occurred. For the purposes of admissibility, the IACHR must determine whether the petition raises allegations that tend to establish a violation, as stipulated in Article 47(b) of the American Convention, or whether the petition is “manifestly groundless or obviously out of order,” as stipulated in subparagraph (c) of that Article. 47. The parameters for judgment on these grounds are different from the requirement for ruling on the merits of a case. The IACHR must conduct a prima facie evaluation to determine whether the complaint provides grounds for an apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention, and not establish whether such violation actually occurred. This does not pre-judge or advance an opinion on the merits of the case. The distinction between the review to determine admissibility and the review required to determine a violation is reflected in the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR, which clearly establish different stages for admissibility and merits. 48. The Paraguayan State affirms that the Supreme Court Justices were tried according to a procedure established by the Constitution, that is, an impeachment trial held in public and with respect for all procedural guarantees, including the right to present a defense. The State adds that the decision to remove the petitioner from his post was in line with Paraguayan laws and that there were no violations of the American Convention. Additionally, the State asserts that the legal reasoning and claims set forth by the petitioner are absurd, and are inconsistent with the spirit of the American Convention. 49. The petitioner maintains that he did not have access to simple and prompt recourse to protect his rights, nor due process to guarantee the proper independence and impartiality of the bodies trying his case, in violation of Articles 25 and 8 of the Convention. He also alleges that there was unwarranted delay in rendering judgment on the constitutionality challenges which he had filed, because these have exceeded the time period established in Paraguayan law. He argues that these facts also constitute violations of Articles 9