7 infringes the law that is the basis of those rights. On this point, the IACHR considers that none of the hypotheses posited by the State fit the situation posed by the petitioner, since the act by which Congress removed the justices from the bench of the Constitutional Court –allegedly in violation of the Ecuadorian Constitution- cannot be equated with an administrative decision.6 Therefore, the Commission finds that administrative litigation would not be a suitable or effective remedy that the petitioner would have to pursue to comply with the requirement established in Article 46 of the Convention. 31. Finally, with respect to the so-called action for protection, the Commission notes that the State has not provided information that would show that it is a suitable and effective remedy for challenging the dismissal resolution, and it is a remedy that was established following the entry into force of the Constitution of 2008, and therefore was not available at the time of the facts alleged in the petition, which occurred on November 25, 2004. The IACHR therefore considers that the petitioner cannot be required to pursue it. 32. In view of the foregoing, the Commission considers, for purposes of analyzing the requirement for exhaustion of domestic remedies, that the petitioner did not have a simple and effective recourse by which to challenge the congressional resolution that he believed violated his human rights. Therefore, the IACHR considers that the exceptions to the requirement for exhaustion of domestic remedies allowed in Article 46.2.a of the American Convention apply to the instant case. 33. Invocation of exceptions to the rule for exhaustion of domestic remedies allowed in Article 46.2 of the Convention is closely linked to the determination of possible violations of certain rights contained therein, such as guarantees of access to justice. However, Article 46.2, by its nature and purpose, is an autonomous norm vis á vis the Convention’s substantive norms. Therefore, the determination as to whether the exceptions to the exhaustion of domestic remedies rule are applicable to the case in question should be made prior to and separate from the analysis of the merits of the case, 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 Convention. The causes and effects that prevented the exhaustion of domestic remedies will be analyzed in the Commission’s report on the merits of the case to determine whether they constitute violations of the American Convention. 2. Deadline for submitting the petition 34. Article 46.1.b of 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 from the date when the alleged injured party was notified of the final decision. Article 32 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure stipulates that in those 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. 35. In the case under study, the Commission has concluded that the exception to the requirement for exhaustion of domestic remedies is applicable, so the IACHR must decide whether the petition was presented within a reasonable period of time in view of the specific circumstances. The Commission notes that the resolution that dismissed the petitioner was adopted on November 25, 2004, 6 See in this regard Report No. 5/07, Petition 161-05, Admissibility, Miguel Camba Campos et al, Ecuador, February 27, 2007, para. 24.