13. The petitioner stated when lodging the complaint that the legal deadline for completing the investigation had already passed without its being completed. In the hearing held in October 1996 the State maintained that the investigation was continuing, and since then has not said that it has been completed. 14. More than three years after the events in question, the State has yet to assert that the investigation has been completed. On the subject of the obligation of a state to investigate acts in violation of human rights protected by the Convention, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has this to say: The duty to investigate, like the duty to prevent, is not breached merely because the investigation does not produce a satisfactory result. Nevertheless, it must be undertaken in a serious manner and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective. 2 15. The Commission considers that the investigation has gone on too long, and there is no indication of any satisfactory conclusion. The Commission accepts the claim that the domestic remedies established in Article. 46(1) of the Convention have been exhausted on the grounds of the unwarranted delay in rendering final judgment under those remedies as provided in Articles 46(2)(c) of the Convention and 37(2)(c) of the Commission’s Regulations. 2. Timeliness of presentation 16. The Commission holds applicable to the case Article 38(2) of its Regulations, which reads as follows: In the circumstances set forth in Article 37(2) of these Regulations, the deadline for presentation of a petition to the Commission shall be within a reasonable period of time, in the Commission’s judgment, as from the date on which the alleged violation of rights has occurred, considering the circumstances of each specific case. 17. The petition was presented five months after the events in question because the investigation, which was to have been completed in 30 days, had not been, nor had a judicial extension been granted. The petition was subsequently repeated at the hearings in March and October 1996 inasmuch as the investigation had not been completed, as the Government acknowledged. The Commission finds on consideration that the petition was presented within a reasonable period of time considering the characteristics of the case. 3. Consideration in other venues 18. It is the understanding of the Commission that the matter of the petition is not pending settlement in another international proceeding, nor does it duplicate a petition already examined by it or another international organization. It therefore considers that the requirements established in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(1)(d) have also been met. 4. Basis of the petition 19. The Commission finds that, in principle, petitioner’s presentation refers to acts that could characterize a violation of rights guaranteed in the American Convention. Inasmuch as there is no evidence of groundlessness or impropriety in the petition, the Commission is of the view that the requirements of Article 47(b) and (c) of the Convention have been met. VII. CONCLUSIONS 20. The Commission finds that it has jurisdiction to hear the present case, which is admissible in the terms of the requirements established in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. 2 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Judgment of July 29, 1988, pr. 177, p.156. 3