before final exhaustion of domestic remedies. On December 15, 2003 the Supreme Court issued its decision on the last appeal filed during the proceedings against Mr. Norín and Mr. Pichún. Therefore, the IACHR considers the petition to have been lodged within a reasonable time period, thus fulfilling the requirement of Article 46.1.b of the American Convention. 3. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 58. The petition file contains no information whatsoever that might lead one to believe that this matter is pending resolution in another international forum. Nor is it believed that this petition or communication is substantially the same as one previously studied by the IACHR. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the requirements of 46.1.c and 47.d of the American Convention have been met. 4. Characteristics of the alleged facts 59. In the present case, the State alleged that the petition is inadmissible because the facts described therein do not tend to establish a violation of the rights guaranteed by the Convention. Thus the State asked the IACHR to dismiss the case pursuant to Article 47.b and c of the American Convention. 60. The Commission does not consider it appropriate at this stage of the proceedings to establish whether violations of the alleged victims’ rights to a fair trial and freedom from expost facto laws in fact occurred. For the purposes of admissibility, the IACHR must only determine whether facts were presented that if proven would constitute a violation of the American Convention, as stipulated in Article 47.b of same, or whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order,” according to subparagraph (c) of that Article. 61. The criteria for assessing these extremes are different from the requirements for ruling on the merits of a petition. The IACHR must conduct a prima facie evaluation to determine whether the petition provides grounds for the apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention, but not establish the existence of such a violation. 25 This is a summary analysis, which does not imply prejudice 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 Inter-American Commission, which establish different stages for admissibility and merits.26 62. The jurisprudence of this body clearly establishes that it is not competent to review decisions issued by national courts acting within their jurisdiction and respecting the right to a fair trial. The IACHR cannot become a forum to review alleged errors of fact or law committed by national courts acting within the limits of their competence. However, within the limits of its mandate to protect the rights embodied in the Convention, the Inter-American Commission is competent to declare a petition admissible and to rule on its grounds when it refers to a national judicial decision that was issued in a departure from due process, or if it describes a violation of any other right protected by the Convention.27 63. The State argued that the complaint is manifestly groundless because it does not state facts that tend to establish a violation of the rights guaranteed by the American Convention. 25 See IACHR, Report No. 128/01, Case 12,367, Herrera y Vargas (“La Nación”), Costa Rica, December 3, 2001, para. 50. See IACHR Report No. 4/04, Petition 12,324, Rubén Luís Godoy, Argentina, February 24, 2004, para. 43 26 See IACHR, Report No. 31/03, Case 12,195, Mario Alberto Jara Oñate et al., Chile, March 7, 2003, para. 41. See IACHR Report N° 4/04, Petition 12,324, Rubén Luis Godoy, Argentina, February 24, 2004, para. 43 27 See IACHR Report Nº 1/03, Case 12,221, Jorge Omar Gutiérrez, Argentina, February 20, 2003, para. 46, citing Report Nº 39/96, Case Nº 11,673, Marzioni, Argentina, October 15, 1996, paras. 50-51. See, IACHR, Report Nº 4/04, Petition 12,324, Rubén Luis Godoy, Argentina, February 24, 2004, para. 44 11