31. In the present case, the Commission observes that the State did not file at the appropriate time an objection claiming failure to exhaust local remedies. Therefore, the conclusion is that it tacitly waived its right to file such objection. Moreover, the State did not challenge the petitioners’ allegations regarding application of the exception provided for in Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention. Therefore, the requirement stipulated in Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention does not apply in the present case. b. Time period for submitting a petition 32. In the petition under study, the IACHR has established the Colombian State’s tacit waiver of its right to file the objection asserting failure to exhaust the remedies under domestic law, so that Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention does not apply. However, the treaty-based requirements regarding exhaustion of local remedies and the rule requiring that the petition be submitted within six months of the date on which the petitioner was notified of the final judgment, are two separate matters. Therefore, the Commission must determine whether the petition under study was lodged within a reasonable period. The Commission notes that the original petition was lodged on May 4, 1995, which, given the circumstances of the present petition, is considered reasonable. c. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 33. There is nothing in the case file to indicate that this matter is pending with another international arrangement for settlement or that it is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization. The IACHR therefore concludes that the exceptions allowed under Article 46(1)(c) and in Article 47(d) of the American Convention do not apply. d. Characterization of the facts alleged 34. If true, the facts reported by the petitioners concerning alleged violations of the right to life, the right to humane treatment, the right to personal liberty and the right to judicial protection of Noel Emiro Omeara Carrascal, Guillermo Omeara Miraval and Héctor Alvarez Sánchez, could tend to establish violations of the rights recognized in articles 4, 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. V. CONCLUSIONS