46. Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention provides that admission of a petition shall be subject to the requirement that it is "lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the party alleging violation of his rights was notified of the final judgment." In the instant case, a final decision has not been rendered from whose date of notification a period of six months may be counted. Bearing in mind that the petitioner filed a complaint under domestic law on November 20, 2001, and that the investigation remains pending of the rights that the alleged victim alleges were violated during said investigation, and taking account of the date of lodging the petition with the IACHR, the Commission considers that it was lodged within a reasonable period. Therefore, the requirement regarding the period for submission under the provisions of Article 32 of its Rules of Procedure has been met. 3. Duplication 47. Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention provides that admission of petitions shall be subject to the requirement that the matter “is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement,” and Article 47(d) of the Convention stipulates that the Commission shall consider inadmissible any petition that “is substantially the same as one previously studied by” the Commission or by another international organization. In the instant case, the parties have not adduced the existence of either of these two requirements of inadmissibility, nor may they be deduced from the proceedings. 4. Colorable Claim 48. For purposes of admissibility, the IACHR must decide whether the petition states facts that tend to establish a violation of the Convention, as stipulated in Article 47(b) of the American Convention, and whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order,” in accordance with Article 47(c). The standard of evaluation of these two questions is different from that required to decide on the merits of a complaint. The IACHR must make a prima facie evaluation in order to consider whether the complaint is based on an apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention and not to establish the existence of a violation. Such evaluation constitutes a summary review that does not prejudge the merits of the matter discussed. 49. The petitioner alleges that a series of irregularities were committed by the judicial authorities in investigating a serious crime committed against V.R.P., especially (a) inappropriate treatment of a child in her condition as the victim of a sex crime; and (b) negligence on 16