7 30. Therefore, given the characteristics of this case, the length of time that has passed since the events that are the subject of the petition transpired, and as no final decision has as yet been delivered in a criminal case that began back in 1999, the Commission considers that the exception allowed under Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention also applies, which is the exception allowed for an unwarranted delay in the domestic proceedings; therefore, the rule requiring exhaustion of domestic remedies is not exigible. 31. Invocation of the Article 46(2) exceptions to the rule requiring exhaustion of domestic remedies is closely linked to the determination of possible violations of certain Conventionprotected rights, such as the guarantees of access to justice. However, Article 46(2) of the Convention, by its nature and purpose, has a content that is independent of and separate from the substantive norms of the Convention. The determination as to whether the exceptions to the requirement for exhaustion of domestic remedies stipulated in Article 46(2) apply to the case must therefore be made prior to and independently of the analysis of the merits, as it hinges on a standard of assessment that is different from the one used to determine whether there has been a violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. 1. Deadline for Submitting the Petition 32. The American Convention provides that for a petition to be admissible by the Commission, it must have been filed within six months following the date on which the aggrieved party was notified of the final judgment. In the petition sub examine, the IACHR has established that the Article 46(2)(c) exception to the rule requiring exhaustion of domestic remedies applies. Article 32 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure provides that in those cases in which the exceptions to the rule requiring exhaustion of domestic remedies apply, the petition is to be presented within a reasonable period of time, as determined by the Commission. For this purpose, the Commission is to consider the date on which the alleged violation of rights occurred and the circumstances of each case. 33. In the instant case, the events that are the subject of the petition began in August 1998 and the petition was received on May 6, 2002, when the Public Prosecutor’s closing statement in the criminal case, which would bring the preliminary phase of the proceedings to a conclusion and is a requirement under Venezuelan law, had not yet been delivered. The case began in July 1999. No decision had been handed down on the petition of amparo that the petitioner filed on July 9, 2001 and that the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court took up on January 6, 2002. Therefore, given the circumstances of the case in question, particularly the course of the criminal case in the domestic courts and the arguments alleging an unwarranted delay and the denial of justice, the Inter-American Commission concludes that the petition was lodged within a reasonable period of time. Hence, the requirement stipulated in Article 32(2) of its Rulers of Procedure has been satisfied. 2. Duplication of proceedings and international res judicata 34. Nothing in the case file suggests that the petition lodged with the Inter-American Commission is currently pending settlement in another international proceeding or that it is substantially the same as another petition already examined by this Commission or another international body, as stipulated in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the American Convention,