48. The IACHR also observes that on March 28, 2008, the alleged victim filed a complaint with the Superior Prosecutor, Chief of the Decentralized Office of Internal Control of La Libertad, to begin an investigation into the crimes of abuse of authority, coercion, and delay in the administration of justice against two prosecutors who were involved in his case. The alleged victim argued that he has been the target of harassment and discrimination by a provincial prosecutor, which also caused delays making it impossible for him to have his forensic medical exam immediately, and by a deputy prosecutor who had intervened during the forensic medical exam to call into question the occurrence of the rape. The Superior Prosecutor, by report of July 24, 2009, declared that the complaint for abuse of authority was well-founded, indicating that the prosecutor had delayed the medical exam, and that the deputy prosecutor had been present when the medical exam was performed, without the prior consent of the person injured, as required by the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Office of the Attorney General, for its part, found the complaint to be without merit and archived it. 49. The IACHR takes note of the petitioners’ argument that the alleged victim had suffered discrimination due to his sexual orientation from the moment of his detention and during the investigation into the facts. In addition, the Commission notes that the alleged victim presented arguments to the prosecutorial authority regarding irregularities in the preliminary investigation related to alleged delaying and intimidating actions by prosecutors, presumably motivated by his sexual orientation. In this trend, the obligation to conduct an investigation with due diligence takes on a special meaning when the presumed victim has alleged that he has been discriminated against because of his sexual orientation, which is a suspect category under article 1(1) of the American Convention;3 taking into account the situation of marginalization and historic exclusion that persons with a sexual orientation that is not heterosexual have been subjected to,4 moreover when it concerns a person under state custody. 50. In conclusion, the IACHR observes that the proceedings initiated domestically, both to determine liability in relation to the alleged acts of violence to the detriment of Luis Alberto Rojas Marín and in relation to the alleged discrimination by the prosecutors in the case, were closed in the investigative stage. In this regard, the petitioners argue that the alleged victim did not have effective access to justice, given the fact that he allegedly suffered discrimination due to his sexual orientation. 51. Taking into account the information presented, and for the purposes of the preliminary analysis on admissibility, the IACHR considers that the alleged victim fits within the exception to the exhaustion of domestic remedies requirement, in keeping with Article 46(2)(b) of the American Convention. The Commission wishes to emphasize that this decision on admissibility is prima facie, for the purposes of determining compliance with the admissibility requirements, and does not constitute prejudgment on the merits of the controversy. The IACHR considers that these arguments require an in-depth analysis in the merits phase. C. Time for filing the petition 52. Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention establishes that for a petition to be declared admissible it must be filed within six months counted from the date on which the interested party was notified of the final decision that exhausted domestic remedies. This rule does not apply when the Commission finds that one of the exceptions to the exhaustion requirement set forth in Article 46(2) of the Convention applies. In such cases, the Commission must determine whether the petition was filed in a reasonable time, as per Article 32 of its Rules of Procedure. 53. As regards this claim, the Commission has already established that the alleged victim is exempt from exhausting domestic remedies. Accordingly one must determine whether the petition was filed in a reasonable time after the events occurred. 3 IACHR, Application before the I/A Court H.R., Case 12.502, Karen Atala and Daughters, Chile, September 17, 2010, para. 95. 4 IACHR, Application before the I/A Court H.R., Case 12.502, Karen Atala and Daughters, Chile, September 17, 2010, para. 94. 9