of cases, the remedies that must be exhausted are ordinary not extraordinary.14 The Commission has noted that when the petitioners allege irregularities throughout the different stages of the proceeding, an extraordinary motion for relief need not be exhausted inasmuch as it is not the purpose of those remedies to cure supposed irregularities during the stages of investigation or formalization of charges in a criminal proceeding. 15 48. In view of the fact that the State had a chance to cure the alleged violations in the proceedings against Mr. Eusebio Domingo Revelles both by means of the appeal of the decision to institute trial proceedings and by means of the “consultation” or review of judgment by the Superior Court of Justice, the Commission finds that it was not necessary to exhaust any additional remedies and that the requirement set forth in Article 46.1.a of the Convention has been satisfied. With regard to the withdrawal of the petition for writ of reversal of judgment on cassation, the Commission finds that it would not be reasonable to make admissibility of the claim contingent upon exhaustion of this extraordinary remedy, which required Mr. Domingo Revelles to remain deprived of his liberty while it was being decided, precluding him from benefitting from prison release that would result from a dispositive judgment. And, all of this was despite the fact that the alleged violations had previously been brought to the attention of the authorities through other mechanisms. 49. As for the criminal proceedings against Jorge Eliécer Herrera Espinoza and Emmanuel Cano, the information provided by the petitioner indicates that these proceedings were suspended as a result of their status as fugitives of justice. The petitioner, however, did not submit information about the current status of the case against Mr. Alfonso Jaramillo. Therefore, the Commission has no information available to it in order to deem the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies as satisfied with regard to the claims pertaining to the alleged violations of fair trial rights during the criminal proceedings against these three individuals. C. Timeliness of the Petition 50. Pursuant to Article 46.1.b of the American Convention, in order for a petition to be admitted by the Commission, it must be lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the alleged victim was notified of the final judgment exhausting domestic remedies. This rule is not applicable, when the Commission finds that any exception to the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies has been met, as provided for in Article 46.2 of the Convention. In such instances, the Commission must determine whether the petition was lodged within a reasonable period of time in accordance with Article 32 of the Rules of Procedure. 51. With regard to the reputedly arbitrary detention and the allegations of torture, beatings and abuse that was inflicted on the alleged victims, the Commission has established above in the instant claim that the exception to the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies provided under Article 46.2.a and 46.2.c, respectively, of the American Convention, are applicable. Taking into account that the alleged victims were detained on August 2, 1994 and the petition was lodged on October 31, 1994, after the alleged victims reported the reputed torture, beatings and abuse in their initial statements before a judge, with no investigation being launched as a consequence thereof, the Commission finds that the petition was lodged within a reasonable period and that the admissibility requirement pertaining to the timeliness of the petition must be considered satisfied. 52. As to the claims relating to the excessively protracted pretrial custody of Eusebio Domingo Revelles, as well as the violations that were committed during the case proceedings, the Commission notes that the remedies pursued with regard to these claims were settled subsequently to the date of the lodging of the original petition. The Commission notes that during the processing of the petition, the petitioner reported 14IACHR, Report No. 51/03, petition 11.819, Admissibility, Christian Daniel Domínguez Domenichetti, Argentina, October 24, 2003, para. 45. 15 IACHR, Report No. 51/03, petition 11.819, Admissibility, Christian Daniel Domínguez Domenichetti, Argentina, October 24, 2003, para. 45. 9