2. Deadline for filing a petition 37. In accordance with Article 46(1) of the Convention, for a petition to be admissible it must 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. Article 32 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure also establishes that when any of the exceptions to the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies rule is applicable, the petition must be lodged within a reasonable period of time, as determined by the Commission. 38. The petition under examination was received on April 28, 1997. The Council of State’s ruling on the nullification appeal, which exhausted the domestic remedies available for this aspect of the petition, was decided on March 4, 1997. Hence, the IACHR concludes that in the present case, the requirement stipulated in Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention was fulfilled. 39. With regard to the complaints about the alleged failure to effectively secure the U’wa people’s ancestral territory, as indicated ut supra, the U’wa people have been petitioning the competent Colombian authorities since 1999. Therefore, the IACHR concludes that these allegations meet the reasonable period stipulated in Article 32.2 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. 3. Duplication of proceedings and international res judicata 40. Article 46(1)(c) provides that for a petition to be admissible “the subject of the petition or communication” shall not be “pending in another international proceeding for settlement.” Article 47(d) of the Convention stipulates that the Commission shall not consider admissible a petition that is “substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization.” In the matter under consideration, the Colombian State’s original reply, received August 7, 1997, was that the approval of the oil exploration in 1992, alleged to have been done without prior consultation and to the detriment of the U’wa people, had reportedly been brought to the attention of the United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, although no further information was supplied. 41. The IACHR recalls in this regard that the grounds for inadmissibility require that in addition to having identical subjects, purposes, and claims, the petition must be under consideration or have been ruled upon by an international organization that is competent to adopt decisions on the specific facts contained in the petition and measures for effective settlement of the matter in dispute.9 The Commission notes that the aforementioned Sub-Commission, now extinct, was the principal subsidiary organ of the Commission on Human Rights, created by the United Nations Economic and Social Council in Resolution 9 (II) of May 21, 1946, and later replaced by the Human Rights Council on March 15, 2006.10 The IACHR notes also that the procedures available with the Commission on Human Rights on the date it was alleged to have been apprised of the situation, were governed by Resolution No. 1235 (XLII) adopted by ECOSOC on June 6, 1967, and Resolution No. 1503 (XLVIII), which ECOSOC adopted on May 27, 1970. 42. The Commission therefore considers that the procedures in question were not substantially the same as the procedure stipulated for processing individual petitions lodged with the inter-American system, in part because they were not examining individual cases but rather situations affecting many people with a view to determining whether the situation presented involved persistent human rights violations. The IACHR finds that unlike an individual petition system, those mechanisms did not aim for an effective resolution of the violation denounced, nor were decisions and measures adopted aimed at settling disputes such as the matter under consideration. Nevertheless, the IACHR notes that the object and purpose were not substantially the same as the matter under consideration, as the petitioners have denounced other actions and omissions on the part of the Colombian State with respect to the U’wa people. In addition, neither of the parties informed the Commission of the procedure followed after the matter was brought to the Commission’s attention or 9 IACHR, Report No. 96/98 (Admissibility), Petition 11,827, Peter Blaine, December 17, 1998, paragraph 42; IACHR, Report No. 01/09 (Admissibility), Petition 1491-05, Benito Antonio Barrios et al., January 17, 2009, paragraph 66. 10 UN. General Assembly. Resolution 60/251 of March 15, 2006. 9