5 arbitrary denial of the right to life, the appropriate remedy is the investigation and criminal proceedings undertaken and pursued ex officio by the State in order to identify and punish those responsible. 4 33. The State argues that the petitioners should have exhausted the remedy of constitutional protection, established in Article 27 of the Constitution. According to the State, “this action is intended to restore the violated or threatened rights by means of a short procedure, and is a vehicle for ensuring the peaceful enjoyment of the person’s rights and guarantees.”5 34. In the instant case the deaths of the alleged victims occurred in the Vista Hermosa Prison on November 10, 2003, and now, more than seven years later, the criminal proceeding is in the preparatory phase. The appropriate remedy in the case, in principle, is criminal investigation. The State has not indicated that the facts investigated are particularly complex, and the file does not indicate that. On the contrary, the alleged perpetrators of the deaths have been identified from the first moments of the investigation, and the facts occurred when the victims were under control of the State, incarcerated in a prison. However, the case in the domestic jurisdiction has not advanced beyond the initial investigative period despite the passing of several years. Therefore, the Inter-American Commission concludes that the exception to the requirement for exhaustion of domestic remedies stipulated in Article 46.2.c of the American Convention applies, given the unwarranted delay in reaching a judgment under the domestic remedies. 35. Finally, the Commission reiterates that the exceptions to the requirement for exhaustion of domestic remedies set forth in Article 46.2 of the Convention are closely linked to determination of possible violations of certain rights guaranteed in that instrument, such as the right to a fair trial. However, by its nature and purpose, Article 46.2 is an autonomous norm vis á vis the substantive norms of the Convention. A decision on whether the exceptions to the requirement for exhaustion of domestic remedies apply to the case in question must therefore be made prior to and independently of the analysis of the merits, because it requires a different standard of assessment than that used to determine the possible violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. 36. In the light of the foregoing, and the evidence present in the file of the instant case, the Inter-American Commission considers for purposes of determining admissibility that there has been an unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment and the domestic remedies have been ineffective for timely resolution of the matter. The IACHR therefore applies the exception to the requirement for exhaustion of domestic remedies established in Article 46.2.c of the American Convention to the instant case. C. Deadline for presentation of the petition 37. Article 46.1.b of the Convention requires that, in order to be admissible, petitions must be submitted within six months of the notification of the final judgment rendered in the domestic jurisdiction. 38. In the case under consideration, the IACHR has applied the exception to exhaustion of domestic remedies set forth in Article 46.2.c of the American Convention. In this regard, Article 32 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure establishes that in cases in which the exceptions to the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies are applicable, the petition shall be presented within a reasonable period of time, as determined by the Commission. For this purpose, the Commission shall consider the date on which the alleged violation of rights occurred and the circumstances of each case. 39. The facts that gave rise to the petition started in November 2003, the petition was presented to the IACHR in October 2007, and according to information in the case file on the date of this report, investigations were still in the preparatory phase. The petitioners filed a motion to expedite the proceeding, which the Third Control Court denied in 2006. The Commission therefore considers that the 4 IACHR, Report No. 22/09, Petition 908-04, Admissibility, Igmar Alexander Landaeta Mejías and others, Venezuela, March 20, 2009, para. 45. 5 Response of the State received on November 17, 2008, pp. 18 and 19.