5 and that according to the criminal procedure law now in effect the accused is the only party authorized to petition for the conclusion of the investigations while the victims, in contrast, are not empowered to do so. 4 Regarding the trial phase, they indicate that the court hearing the case has systematically postponed the holding of a hearing to open the trial, always due to a failure to comply with some formal procedural requirement, a failing that cannot be attributed to the victims’ representative. Thus, they believe that it has been impossible to formally exhaust the domestic remedies due to the procedural conduct of the State itself. 29. In this regard, the State only points out that the Office of the Public Prosecutor initiated the investigations in a timely manner and filed the formal indictment against the three accused parties in September 2008, but does not refer to the concrete allegations made by the petitioners and does not provide information that would allow us to understand why the competent judicial authorities needed to delay the course of the proceeding. In addition, the State has not provided any updated information regarding potential progress in the domestic criminal proceeding, despite having the procedural opportunity to do so. 30. On this point, the Commission notes that although the investigations began on June 30, 2005, the date of the events themselves, after seven and half years the Fifth Trial Court of the State of Bolívar has not conducted the hearing to open the trial. Therefore, the IACHR concludes that the exception to the rule of prior exhaustion established in Article 46.2.c of the American Convention applies, since there was an unwarranted delay in the decision regarding the domestic remedies. 31. Finally, the Commission reiterates that the exceptions to the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies provided in Article 46.2 of the Convention are closely tied to the determination of possible violations of certain rights enshrined therein, such as the guarantees on access to justice. However, Article 46.2, based on its nature and purpose, is a provision with autonomous content vis-à-vis the substantive provisions of the Convention. Therefore, the determination as to whether the exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies are applicable to the case in question must 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. C. Deadline for submitting the petition 32. Article 46.1.b of the American Convention establishes that in order for a petition to be admissible 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. 33. In the complaint under analysis, the IACHR has established the application of the exception to the exhaustion of domestic remedies stipulated in Article 46.2.c of the American Convention. In this regard, Article 32 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure establishes that in cases where the 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 that end, the Commission must consider the date when the alleged violation of rights occurred and the circumstances of each case. 34. This petition was received on October 12, 2007, the facts covered in the complaint would have begun on June 30, 2005, and the effects thereof in terms of the alleged denial of justice would extend to the present day. Therefore, the Commission believes that the petition was submitted within a reasonable period of time under the terms of the IACHR Rules of Procedure and consistent with its practice in similar cases. 4 On this point, the Article 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which establishes that: “The Office of the Public Prosecutor shall strive to conclude the preparatory phase with the diligence required by the case. When six months have elapsed since the accused was individually identified, the accused may request that the Supervisory Judge establish a prudential period of no less than thirty days and no more than one hundred twenty days to conclude the investigation. In defining this period, the Judge should hear the Office of the Public Prosecutor and the accused and take into consideration the extent of the damage caused, the complexity of the case, and any other circumstance that in his judgment would make achieving the purpose of the proceeding possible.” Petition received on October 12, 2007, p. 49.