8 will be analyzed in the Commission’s report on the substance of the dispute, to determine if they constitute violations of the American Convention. 2. Deadline for submitting the petition 39. According to the American Convention, in order to be admitted, a petition must be lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the presumed injured parties were notified of the final judgment. In the complaint under analysis, the IACHR has established the applicability of the exceptions to exhaustion of domestic remedies in accordance with Article 46.2.c) of the American Convention. For its part, Article 32 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure establishes that in those cases in which the exceptions to the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies are applicable, the petition must be presented within a reasonable period of time, to be determined by the Commission. For this purpose, the Commission should consider the date on which the presumed violation of rights occurred and the circumstances of each case. 40. The petition of the case under study was received on June 26, 2011, and the alleged forced disappearance of Nitza Paola, Rocio Irene, and José Ángel Alvarado would have occurred in December 2009. Up to the date the petition was submitted, the relatives of the presumed victims had presented multiple complaints and the amparo appeal in an effort to elucidate the facts and ascertain their whereabouts. Taking into account that the preliminary inquiry of the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic remained open in an initial stage for approximately three years, the IACHR concludes that the petition was presented within a reasonable period of time and therefore considers fulfilled the requirement established in Article 46.1.b) of the Convention. 3. Duplication of proceedings and international res judicata 41. The case file does not indicate that the issue addressed in the petition is pending before any other international proceeding, nor that it repeats a petition that has already been heard by this or any other international body. Accordingly, the requirements established in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the American Convention have been met. 4. Characterization of the alleged facts 42. For the purpose of admissibility, the Commission must decide if the petition states facts that would characterize a violation, as stipulated in Article 47(b) of the American Convention, if the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “evidently out of order,” according to paragraph c) of that article. The standard for appraising these points is different than the standards for deciding the merits of a complaint. The Commission must make a prima facie evaluation to determine if the complaint substantiates the apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention, and not to establish the existence of a violation. This evaluation is a summary analysis which does not imply prejudgment or a preliminary opinion on the merits. 43. Moreover, neither the American Convention nor the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR require that the petitioner identify the specific rights allegedly violated by the State in the matter submitted to the Commission, although they may do so. It falls to the Commission to determine in its admissibility reports, based on the jurisprudence of the system, what provision of the relevant Inter-American instruments is applicable and could establish violation if the alleged facts are sufficiently proven. 44. Given the arguments of fact and law submitted by the petitioners and the nature of the matter before it, the IACHR finds that in the present petition it must establish that the allegations related to the presumed forced disappearance of Nitza Paola, Rocio Irene, and José Ángel Alvarado, could characterize violations to the rights enshrined in Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, relative to Article 1.1 of that instrument. Similarly, bearing in mind the nature of the facts denounced, the Commission will analyze in the merits stage the Mexican State’s possible failure to comply with the obligations assumed under Articles I and XI of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. With regard to Nitza Paola and Rocio Irene