39. Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention states that in order for a petition to be admissible, it must be “lodged with a period of six months from the date on which the party alleging violation of his rights was notified of the final judgment.” 40. Article 46(2) of the American Convention establishes that the provisions of Article 46(1)(b) shall not apply when: a) the domestic legislation of the state concerned does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right or rights that have allegedly been violated; b) the party alleging violation of his rights has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law or has been prevented from exhausting them; or c) there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment. 41. In the case in question, compliance with the requirement established in Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention is related to application of the exceptions to exhaustion of the remedies under domestic law established in the Convention itself, as analyzed in the foregoing paragraphs. The Commission has concluded that in the present case, there has been an unwarranted delay in procedures to clarify the case on the part of the Honduran authorities, as a result of which this requirement is considered as met. 7 42. On this point, Article 32(2) of the IACHR’s Rules of Procedure states as follows: 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. 43. The petition was received on February 6, 2003, and the event that gave rise to this process, the murder of Blanca Jeannette Kawas, occurred on February 6, 1995, while investigations, testimony, and inquiries followed and generated information on alleged perpetrators, but without any results, up to the time before the petition was lodged. Therefore, in the opinion of the Commission, based on the foregoing considerations and the specific circumstances of the case in question, the petition was lodged within a reasonable period of time. 2. Duplication of international proceedings and res judicata 44. It does not appear from the case files that the matter of the petition is pending in another international proceeding, or that it replicates a petition already examined by this or another international entity. It is therefore considered that the requirements established in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention have been met. 3. Characterization of the alleged facts 45. The Commission is of the view that the allegations of the petitioners regarding the alleged violation of the right to a fair trial and to judicial protection owing to the victim, if proven, could characterize a violation of the rights guaranteed in Articles 4, 5(1), 5(2), 8(1), and 25(1), considered in relation to Article 1(1), of the American Convention. IV. CONCLUSION 46. The Commission concludes that the case is admissible and that it is competent to examine the complaint lodged by the petitioners regarding the alleged violation of Articles 4, 5, 8, and 25, considered together with Article 1(1) of the American Convention, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 46(1)(c) and (d), 46(2)(c), and 47(b) of that international instrument. 47. On the basis of the aforesaid factual and legal arguments, and without prejudice to the merits of the case, 7 Report N° 63/04 Petition 60/2003, Carlos Antonio Luna López, Admissibility, Honduras, October 13, 2004 6