29. In that connection, the Commission recalls that in circumstances where evolution of the facts initially presented at the domestic level entails a change in terms of compliance or noncompliance with the admissibility requirements, its analysis must be based on the situation extant at the time of its pronouncement on admissibility.2 30. In light of the foregoing, the Commission notes that as of the date of this pronouncement the criminal proceeding had definitively concluded in the domestic jurisdiction. Therefore, the Inter-American Commission considers that domestic remedies have been exhausted with prejudice in accordance with Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention. C. Timeliness of the petition 31. Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention provides that for a petition to be admitted it must be 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 that exhausted the domestic jurisdiction. 32. The Commission established in the previous section that domestic remedies have been exhausted. The requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies was met during the processing of the case with regard to its admissibility and merits. Under those circumstances, the Commission has consistently taken the view that fulfillment of the requirement regarding the time period for lodging the petition is intrinsically linked to the exhaustion of domestic remedies and should therefore be regarded as complied with.3 D. Duplication of international proceedings and res judicata 33. Article 46(1)(c) provides that the admissibility of petitions is subject to the requirement that the subject “is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement,” while Article 47(d) of the Convention stipulates that the Commission shall not admit a petition that “is substantially the same as one previously studied” by the Commission or by another international organization. In the case, the parties have not shown the existence of either of those two circumstances, nor can they be deduced from the record. E. Colorable claim 34. For purposes of admissibility, the Commission must decide whether the petition states facts that tend to establish a violation, as stipulated in Article 47(b) of the American Convention, whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or whether it is "obviously out of order,” as per Article 47(c). The standard of appreciation of these measures is different from that required to decide on the merits of a complaint. The Commission must perform a prima facie evaluation to examine whether the complaint establishes a basis for an apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention and not to establish the existence of a violation. Such a review is a summary analysis that does not imply any pre-judging or any early formation of an opinion on the merits. 35. Neither the American Convention nor the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR requires that the petitioners identify the specific rights alleged to be violated by the State in the matter submitted to the Commission, although the petitioners may do so. Rather, it is up to the Commission, based on the case-law of the system, to determine in its admissibility reports which provision of the relevant inter-American instruments is applicable or could be established as having been violated, if the facts alleged are sufficiently proven. 2 IACHR, Report No. 2/08, Petition 506-05, Admissibility, José Rodríguez Dañín, Bolivia, March 6, 2008, par. 56; and Report No. 25/04, Case 12.361, Admissibility, Ana Victoria Sánchez Villalobos et al. (Costa Rica), March 11, 2004, par. 45. 3 IACHR, Report No. 8/10, Caso 12.374, Admissibility, Jorge Enrique Patiño Palacios et al., Paraguay, March 16, 2010, par. 31; and Report No. 20/05, Petition 716/00, Admissibility, Rafael Correa Díaz, Peru, February 25, 2005, par. 34. 5