admissibility or inadmissibility of a petition.4 During processing there are frequently changes in the status of exhaustion of domestic remedies. However, the case and petition system ensures that both the State and the petitioner have every opportunity to present information and allegations on the matter. Taking this into consideration, the IACHR deems that the remedies presented to challenge the amount of the court costs were exhausted during the processing of this petition. 2. Deadline for presentation of the petition 39. Article 46.1.b of the American Convention requires that in order for petitions to be admissible they be submitted within six months of the date the petitioner is notified of the final judgment that exhausts domestic remedies. 40. In the case under study, the IACHR has determined that the appeals filed to challenge Mr. Rico’s dismissal were exhausted with the decision of the Federal Supreme Court of August 28, 2001, which rejected his complaint motion. He was notified of this decision on September 6, 2001, and the petition was received by the IACHR on March 4, 2002. Therefore, with respect to challenging the dismissal of the alleged victim from his judgeship, the petition meets the deadline established in Article 46.1.b of the American Convention and Article 32 of the IACHR Rules of Procedure. 41. With respect to the decision that denied the alleged victim’s appeal concerning the amount of court costs, it was handed down after the presentation of the petition to the IACHR. Therefore, the exhaustion of domestic remedies occurred while the case was in the phase of examining its admissibility. According to the doctrine of the IACHR, the analysis of the requirements set forth in Article 46.1.b of the Convention should be done in light of the situation as of the moment the decision is issued regarding the admissibility or inadmissibility of the claim.5 In light of the foregoing, the Commission finds this requirement has been met. 3. Duplication of proceedings and international res judicata 42. The file does not indicate that the subject of the petition is pending in another international proceeding for settlement, or that the petition is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organ. Therefore, the requirements established in Articles 46.1.c and 47.d of the Convention have been met. 4. Nature of the allegations 43. To rule on a petition’s admissibility, the Commission must decide whether the facts described in it would tend to establish a violation, as provided in Article 47.b of the American Convention, and whether the petition is “manifestly groundless or obviously out of order,” as provided in Article 47.c. The criterion for analyzing admissibility differs from that used when deciding on the merits of a petition, because the Commission only conducts a prima facie assessment to examine whether the petitioners establish an apparent or potential violation of a right protected by the Convention. That examination is a summary analysis that does not imply prejudging the merits or offering an advance opinion on them 44. Neither the American Convention nor the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR require the petitioner to specify the rights allegedly violated by the State in the matter submitted to the Commission, although petitioners may do so. It is up to the Commission, based on the system’s jurisprudence, to identify in 4 IACHR, Report No. 15/15, Petition 374-04. Admissibility. Members of the Trade Union of Workers of the National Federation of Coffee Growers of Colombia. March 24, 2015, para. 39. Accord I/A Court H.R., Case of Wong Ho Wing v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2015. Series C No. 297. paras. 25-28. 5 IACHR, Report No. 15/15, Petition 374-05. Members of the Trade Union of Workers of the National Federation of Coffee Growers of Colombia. Colombia. March 24, 2015, para. 41. Accord I/A Court H.R., Case of Wong Ho Wing v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2015. Series C No. 297. paras. 25-28.