7 33. For its part, the State points out that there are new jurisdictional guarantees to which individuals may have recourse when they believe that their rights have been violated, namely the action for protection (Article 88 of the Constitution of 2008), the action for failure to act (Article 93 of the Constitution of 2008), and the extraordinary action for protection (Article 94 of the Constitution of 2008). In this regard, the Commission notes that these actions were established in the Constitution enacted in 2008, i.e., 12 years after the decision of April 24, 1996, so they would not have been suitable for resolving the complaint submitted by the petitioners. 34. In the instant case, it is not evident and the State has not substantiated why it would be reasonable to require the petitioners to file independent and additional remedies in order to achieve enforcement of what was ordered in the decision. 35. Therefore, given the characteristics of the complaint that is the subject of the instant case and the alleged failure to enforce the decision of April 24, 1996 and the order of June 19, 1997 in favor of Juan José Meza, as well as the fact that the enforcement process lasted from July 1996 until the archiving of the case on May 28, 2007, the Commission believes that the domestic remedies were exhausted with the decision to archive the case issued on March 28, 2007, so that the petitioners’ complaint meets the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies provided in Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention. 36. Article 46(1)(a), due to its nature and purpose, is a provision with autonomous content vis à vis the substantive provisions of the Convention. Therefore, the determination regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies that are applicable to the case in question must be made prior to and separate from the analysis of the merits of the matter, in that it depends on a standard of assessment different from that used to determine the possible violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. It should be made clear that the causes and effects of the exhaustion of judicial remedies to which reference has been made shall be analyzed in the report the Commission adopts on the merits of the dispute, in order to determine whether they constitute violations of the American Convention. 2. Deadline for submitting the petition 37. The American Convention establishes that in order for a petition to be admitted by the Commission it must be submitted within a period of six months of the date when the alleged injured party was notified of the final decision. Article 32 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission establishes that in cases where exceptions to the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies are applicable, the petition must be submitted within a reasonable period of time in the judgment of the Commission. To this end, the Commission must consider the date when the alleged violation of rights occurred and the circumstances of each case. 38. The Commission notes that the petition was received on February 15, 2001; that the events covered by the complaint occurred starting on November 19, 1991, the date on which the alleged victim filed a labor complaint for unjustified dismissal against the Club Sport Emelec; that on April 24, 1996 the second instance decision was issued by the First Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Guayaquil; and that the enforcement process lasted from July 1996 to the archiving of the case on May 28, 2007. Therefore, in view of the context and the characteristics of the instant case as well as the measures taken by the petitioners since the decision in order to achieve its enforcement, the Commission believes that the petition was submitted on a timely basis and that the admissibility requirement regarding the deadline for submission should be considered satisfied. 3. Duplication of proceedings and international res judicata