16 2. Timeliness of the Petition 93. Article 46(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. In cases such as this where an exception to the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies is applied, the petition must be presented within a reasonable time, depending on the circumstances of the case. 94. In deciding if a petition was lodged within a reasonable time in accordance with Article 32 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, the Commission must consider the date on which the alleged violation of rights occurred and the circumstances of the case. 95. Bearing in mind that the seven children (Yassenia Osnayo Hilario, Miriam Osnayo Hilario, Roxana Osnayo Hilario, Wilmer Hilario Carhuapoma, Alex Jorge Hilario Guillén, Raúl Hilario Guillén, and Héctor Hilario Guillén) and the eight adults (Francisco Hilario Torres, Dionicia Quispe Mallqui, Antonia Hilario Quispe, Magdalena Hilario Quispe, Mercedes Carhuapoma de la Cruz, Ramón Hilario Morán, Dionicia Guillén Riveros, and Elihoref Huamaní Vergara) are alleged to have disappeared on July 4, 1991, and that the petition was received by the IACHR on July 26, 1991, the Commission finds that the petition was presented in a timely manner and that the admissibility requirement as regards the time limit for lodging the petition should be considered met. 3. Duplication of Proceedings and Res Judicata 96. 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 has been previously studied by the Inter-American Commission. Therefore, the IACHR concludes that the exceptions provided at Article 46(1)(d) and Article 47(d) of the American Convention are not applicable. 4. Colorable Claim 97. Article 47(b) of the American Convention provides that petitions or communications that do not State facts that tend to establish a violation of human rights shall not be admitted. The Commission’s review at this stage in the proceedings is not intended to establish whether a violation was committed, but whether the facts alleged, if shown to be true, could tend to establish the violation of a protected right. This is necessarily a preliminary or prima facie analysis and implies no prejudgment on the merits. 98. In light of the fact that the State has not refuted that the alleged victims were detained and then forcibly disappeared, and bearing in mind the arguments of fact and of law made by the parties, as well as the nature of the matter before it, the Commission finds that the petitioners’ claims regarding the extent of the alleged responsibility of the State with respect to the facts alleged in the petition could characterize prima facie violations of the rights protected in Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 of that instrument; and in Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, to the detriment of the seven children and eight adults: Yasenia Osnayo Hilario, Miriam Osnayo Hilario, Roxana Onayo Hilario, Wilmer Hilario Carhuapoma, Alex Jorge Héctor Hilario Guillén, Raúl Hilario Guillén, Héctor Hilario Guillén, Francisco Hilario Torres, Dionicia Quispe Mallqui, Antonia Hilario Quispe, Magdalena Hilario Quispe, Mercedes Carhuapoma de la Cruz, Ramón Hilario Morán, Dionicia Guillén Riveros, and Elihoref Huamaní Vergara; and in Articles 5, 8, and 25 of the American Convention to the detriment of their next-of-kin. 99. Moreover, taking into account that when Peru ratified the American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons on February 13, 2002, pledged to punish within their jurisdictions, those persons who commit or attempt to commit the crime of forced disappearance of persons and their accomplices and accessories, and also the continuing or permanent nature of the crime of forced disappearance, the Commission will analyze whether or not the alleged facts could characterize violations of articles I and III of the above mentioned instrument.