121. The Commission notes that all the complaints presented were examined at first and second instance and that final decisions were adopted on them by the Supreme Court upon its examination of applications for cassation alleging formal and material errors. The Supreme Court accepted the applications or vacated the judgments at second instance sua sponte and, consequently, issued substitute judgments. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, the petitioners say that they had no access to additional remedies and that the State, for its part, has also not identified other suitable remedies that remain to be exhausted. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the respective decisions of the Supreme Court produced final judgments in the criminal proceedings and that the remedies have been exhausted. 2. Timeliness of the petition 122. Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention provides that for a petition to be admissible, it must be presented within six months of the date on which the party alleging violation of rights was notified of the final judgment. 123. The IACHR received the petitions on different dates. Thus, as regards the petition lodged by AFDD, it was received on January 28, 2008 and the facts alleged in the petition occurred on July 30, 2007. As regards the petition received on March 3, 2008, the facts alleged in the petition occurred on September 5, 2007. As regards the petition received on June 26, 2008, the facts alleged in the petition occurred on December 27, 2007. As regards the petition received on June 10, 2009, the facts alleged in the petition occurred on December 11, 2008. As regards the petition received on June 24, 2009, the facts alleged in the petition occurred on December 24, 2008. As regards the petition received on March 4, 2010, the facts alleged in the petition occurred on September 10, 2009. As regards the petition received on January 20, 2010, the facts alleged in the petition occurred on July 23, 2009. As regards the petition received on February 12, 2010, the facts alleged in the petition occurred on August 13, 2009. As regards the petition received on March 25, 2010, the facts alleged in the petition occurred on September 29, 2009. As regards the petition received on June 1, 2010, the facts alleged in the petition occurred on December 2, 2009. As regards the petition received on June 23, 2010, the facts alleged in the petition occurred on December 23, 2009. As regards the petition received on July 20, 2010, the facts alleged in the petition occurred on January 25, 2010. Finally, as regards the petition received on August 16, 2010, the facts alleged in the petition occurred on April 14 and May 18, 2010. 124. Therefore, the Commission concludes that all the matters were presented within the prescribed time and, therefore, the requirement set forth in Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention has been met. 3 Duplication of proceedings and international res judicata 125. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the subject matter of the petition is pending in another international proceeding for settlement or that it is substantially the same as one previously studied by this or any other international organization. Therefore, the requirements set forth in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention are considered as having been met. 4. Colorable Claim 126. For the purposes of admissibility, the IACHR must decide, pursuant to Article 47(b) of the American Convention, whether the facts alleged, if proven, could characterize a violation of rights, or, pursuant to paragraph (c) of the same article, whether the petition is “manifestly groundless" or "obviously out of order." The standard by which admissibility is assessed is different from the one needed to decide the merits of a petition since the Commission must perform a prima facie evaluation to determine whether the petition provides grounds for an apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the American Convention. This examination is a summary analysis that does not imply a prejudgment or preliminary opinion on the merits of the matter. 127. Furthermore, neither the American Convention nor the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR require that the petition identify the specific rights allegedly violated by the State in a matter submitted to the Commission, though the petitioners may do so. It is up to the Commission, based on the case-law of the system, 20