was lodged on June 17, 1997, the Commission finds that the petition has been lodged within a reasonable period of time. The Commission therefore concludes that the requirement defined in Article 46.1.b. of the Convention with regard to the presentation of the petition within a reasonable period has been observed. 3. Duplication of proceedings and international res judicata 66. Nothing in the case file suggests that the subject matter is pending in another international proceeding for settlement or that it is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization. Therefore, the Commission considers that the requirements established in 46(1) (c) and 47(d) have been met. 4. Characterization of the facts alleged 67. As the Commission has held in previous cases, at this stage in the proceedings it is not called upon to establish whether or not a violation of the American Convention has actually occurred. The IACHR must simply establish, for the purposes of admissibility, if the allegations, if proven, state facts that tend to establish a violation of the American Convention, as described in Article 47.b, and whether the petition is “manifestly groundless,” or “obviously out of order,” as described in sub-paragraph c) of the same Article. The standard for assessing admissibility is different from the one used to decide on the merits of a petition. For admissibility, the Commission need only make a prima facie examination, which does not imply any prejudgment or preliminary opinion on the merits. By distinguishing two clearly demarcated phases –one for admissibility and the other for the merits- the Commission’s own Rules of Procedure reflects the distinction between the assessment that the Commission must make for purposes of declaring a petition admissible, and the one required to establish whether a violation has in fact occurred. 68. In the case in question, the petitioner alleges that the facts denounced amount to violations of the rights enshrined in Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, and 25 of the American Convention, all in relation to the general obligation to respect and protect established by Article 1.1 of the same international instrument. 69. For its part, the State indicates that the petitioner’s detention and subsequent trial were carried out, and continue to be carried out, in accordance with the norms of due process. 70. Firstly, the IACHR indicates that the subject of the present petition concerns the alleged arbitrary detention, cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment, as well as alleged acts of torture, all to the detriment of Mrs. Mónica Feria when she was arrested in 1992 and brought to trial for the crime of terrorism. 71. In accordance with the above, the Commission considers that the allegations concerning the alleged arbitrary detention of the petitioner, cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment, the acts of torture allegedly perpetrated during her detention by state agents, and the alleged violations of the guarantees of due process and judicial protection, all of which either took place or are taking place within the framework of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, were they proven, would amount to alleged violations of Articles 5, 7, 8, 9 and 25 of the American Convention. 72. Furthermore, the petitioner has alleged that the State on many occasions described her publicly as a “terrorist” even though she has not been found guilty, and the Commission therefore considers that the facts described warrant precise and detailed examination at the corresponding merits stage in relation to the alleged violation of the right to have one’s honor 11