Pronúncia against Manoel Cardoso Neto and called for him to be tried before the Tribunal de Jurados (Tribunal do Jún). 8 The Judge considered that there was no evidence against Crescencio Oliveria de Souza and declared extinct the punishability of the defendant José Pereira da Nóbrega due to his death on August 1, 1999. 28. A sitting was immediately called in the Tribunal de Jurados in order to bring the defendant Manoel Cardoso Neto to trial on May 23, 2002. The defendant did not appear. A new sitting in the Tribunal de Jurados was called for February 15, 2006 but, the defendant did not appear. On April 3, 2006, the accused was found and taken prisoner by the Federal Police in the state of Minas Gerais. 29. With the defendant in prison, a new hearing was called for April 27, 2006. The IACHR notes that almost twenty years after the death of the alleged victim and without the case appearing in the first instance, on April 10, 2006, the defendant’s lawyers lodged a finding of habeas corpus in his favor and alleged that the criminal action had prescribed. On May 8, 2006, the Pará Court of Justice declared extinct the punishability of the defendant by virtue of its prescription, and resolved his immediate release. 30. The IACHR observes that it is an uncontested fact that on May 8, 2006, the criminal prosecution by the State was declared prescribed in a finding made by the Pará Court of Justice. 31. In order for the Commission to decide whether or not all remedies available under domestic law have been exhausted, the State, which is the party alleging the non-exhaustion, must prove that there remain remedies under domestic law that have not been pursued and that are available and effective. In the present case, the State does not argue that there remain remedies under domestic law to be exhausted in relation to the criminal proceedings, and the petitioners have alleged that the remedies tried have proved ineffective. Having examined the information and the allegations lodged by the two parties, the IACHR concludes that the previous exhaustion requisite described in Article 46.1.2 was complied with, since the criminal action prescribed according to a final judgment of the Pará Court of Justice of May 8, 2006. 2. Deadline for lodging a petition 32. Article 46.1.b of the Convention demands that the petition be “lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the party alleging violation of his rights was notified of the final judgment.” 33. In accordance with what is stated supra (paragraph 30), the judicial decision which declared the prescription of the criminal proceedings concerning the murder of the alleged victim was issued on May 8, 2006. According to the allegations of the petitioners, which were not challenged by the State, the alleged victim’s nextof-kin learned of that decision on May 18, 2006. Therefore, the Commission observes that the petition – presented on November 9, 2006 – complies with the requisite of Article 46.1.b of the American Convention. 3. Duplication of procedures and res judicata 34. It is not evident from the petition lodged with the Inter-American Commission that the subject is currently pending in another international proceedings for settlement or that the petition or communication is substantially the same as one 8 In accordance with Article 5, sub-paragraph XXXVIII of the Brazilian Federal Constitution of 1998, the Tribunal de Jurados is competent to try murder cases.