8 42. Article 46.1.b of the Convention establishes that for a petition to be admissible before the Commission, it must be lodged within a time limit of six months from the date on which the party alleging the violation of rights was notified of the final decision. Given that the Council of the Judiciary of Bolivar handed down its decision on September 7, 2005 and the petition was lodged with the IACHR on December 22, 2005, the Commission finds that the time period set forth in the aforementioned provision of the Convention has been respected. As for the labor proceeding, the Commission notes that, at the time the petition was lodged, the appeal was being heard in the Superior Court of Cartagena and was adjudicated on September 22, 2010. Accordingly, the Commission considers that the petition was lodged within the time period established by the Convention. 3. Duplication of Proceedings and International Res Judicata 43. There is no indication in the case record that the subject of this petition is pending in another proceeding before an international adjudicatory body, or that it reproduces a petition that has already been examined by this or another international body. Therefore, it is deemed that the exceptions set forth in Articles 46.1(d) and 47 (d) of the Convention are not applicable. 4. Colorable Claim 44. For purposes of admissibility, the Commission must decide whether the facts laid out in the petition could tend to establish a violation, as stipulated in Article 47.b of the American Convention, whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or it is “obviously out of order,” as provided in subparagraph “c” of this same article. The standard for evaluating these factual requirements is different from the requirement for deciding on the merits of a petition. The Commission must conduct a prima facie evaluation to determine whether the petition establishes grounds for the apparent or potential violation of a right protected by the Convention, but not to establish the existence of a violation. This evaluation is of a summary nature and does not entail any prejudgment or advance opinion on the merits. 45. In the instant case, the Commission shall examine during the merits stage whether the lack of cause for dismissal from a temporary career position meets the requirements to prevent abuses of power, which jeopardize the rights protected in the Convention. Furthermore, the Commission shall assess inter alia, in light of the Convention, whether in the specific case the act of dismissal, as an alleged result of the decisions of the prosecutor, should be settled through due process and whether prosecutors should have a certain amount of stability to ensure access to justice of the persons on whose behalf they prosecute cases. The IACHR finds that the foregoing considerations could tend to establish a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in connection with Article 1.1 of the Convention. 46. As to the alleged violation of the right to a simple and prompt remedy to protect the alleged victim against acts violating her rights, the IACHR notes that the petitioner pursued tutela, i.e. special protection of her constitutional rights, on two occasions. The first time, it was sought from the Superior Court of Cartagena (Chamber for Labor Matters) and the second time, from the Sectional Council of the Judiciary. The reason why the Superior Council of the Judiciary, the highest body in the procedure for constitutional protection, denied the tutela is that it considered that the claims, parties and facts were identical to the prior proceeding before the Superior Court of Cartagena which had denied the first tutela claim, and therefore it was an irresponsible action for the alleged victim to pursue. 47. The Commission notes that, unlike the first tutela, the alleged victim first raised the argument of a due process violation in the tutela before the Sectional Council. Furthermore, the appellate court found that the legal issue to be settled was the lack of legal reasoning, 15 concluding that in the absence of such cause, the right to due process had been violated. 16 Notwithstanding, in the Council’s final 15 The Sectional Council of the Judiciary considered that the legal issue to be settled involved determining “whether the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation is obligated to give a cause for resolution No. 05213 of October 29, 2004 whereby it vacated the appointment.” 16 The Council held that “with the existing evidence in the case file, the Court finds that the respondent entity –the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation- violated the fundamental right to due administrative process of Prosecuting Attorney Yenina