improperly. Accordingly, the Commission accepts that the requirements under Article 46 have been met. 2. Time period for submission of the petition 27. In accordance with Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention, a petition must be presented in a timely manner to be admitted, namely, within six months from the date on which the complaining party was notified of the final judgment at the domestic level. In the instant case, the final remedy attempted was the request for revocation dismissed by the Supreme Court by means of a decision dated October 19, 1995. The petitioners indicate that they were notified of this decision on October 24, 1995. In view of the petitioners’ contention that the Supreme Court had accepted a request for revocation in another case, a contention the State has not challenged, the presentation of the appeal for revocation appears to have offered at least some possibility of relief. The State, for its part, has raised no challenge with respect to the adequacy of the particular remedy, or compliance with this requirement under Article 46(1)(b). Accordingly, the Commission considers this requirement to have been met. 3. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 28. Article 46(1)(c) sets forth that admission of a petition is subject to the requirement that the subject “is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement,” and Article 47(d) of the Convention stipulates that the Commission shall not admit a petition which “is substantially the same as one previously studied by” it “or by another international organization.” In the present case, the parties have not claimed and the proceedings do not indicate the existence of either of these circumstances of inadmissibility. 4. Characterization of the facts alleged 29. With respect to the admissibility of petitions, the Commission has to determine whether the facts stated in the petition tend to establish a violation of rights set forth in the American Convention, as required under Article 47(b), or whether the petition must be dismissed as “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order” under Article 47(c). 30. With respect to the State’s contention that the petition should be deemed inadmissible for failing to characterize a violation of a protected right, as the Commission has previously indicated, it is not appropriate at this stage of proceedings to determine whether the American Convention was actually violated. For purposes of admissibility, the IACHR must determine whether the facts as set forth could characterize a possible violation, as stipulated in Article 47 of the Convention. The criterion for assessing this is different from that which must be followed in deciding the merits of a complaint. The Commission must conduct a prima facie assessment to determine whether the complaint demonstrates an apparent or potential violation of a right protected by the Convention. This is a summary analysis, which does not imply any prejudgment as to the merits of the dispute. The distinction between the examination required for declaring admissibility and that required for determining a violation is reflected in the IACHR's own rules of procedure, which clearly differentiate these two stages.