IACHR does not have subject-matter jurisdiction to examine cases regarding alleged violations of rights established in Articles 6 and 7 of the Protocol of San Salvador in connection with an individual petition.. B. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 29. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention provides that in order for a complaint submitted to the Inter-American Commission pursuant to Article 44 of the same instrument to be admissible, one must have pursued and exhausted domestic remedies in keeping with generally recognized principles of international law. This rule is designed to allow national authorities to examine alleged violations of protected rights and, as appropriate, to resolve them before they are taken up in an international proceeding. 30. That said, the prior exhaustion rule applies when there are actually available in the national system suitable and effective remedies to repair the alleged violation of human rights. In that regard, Article 46(2) of the Convention specifies that the requirement does not apply when: (i) there is no due process under domestic law to protect the right in question; (ii) the alleged victim did not have access to remedies under domestic law; or (iii) there is an unwarranted delay in the decision under those remedies. The IACHR reiterates its view that analysis of the requirements set forth in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention should be conducted in light of the situation given at the time a pronouncement is made regarding the admissibility or inadmissibility of the petition.3 31. The information available indicates that the alleged victim filed a series of complaints regarding the alleged threats and other acts of harassment and that currently the investigations are still at a preliminary stage without a final decision, without light having been shed on the facts, and without identification of those responsible. The Commission recalls that when petitioners invoke one of the exceptions set forth in Article 46 (2) of the Convention, as in this case, it is up to the State to demonstrate that those exceptions do not apply to that specific case. 32. The Commission observes that the Guatemalan State did not submit any justification whatsoever, in accordance with the preliminary assessment standard corresponding to that stage, why the investigations had taken as many as 21 years - since the first pleadings concerning threats and acts of aggression. The Commission stresses that the same applies to the complaints about subsequent deeds, in the sense that investigations are still at a preliminary stage without any specific justification by the State of why they are taking so long. 33. Therefore, without prejudging the merits of the matter, the Commission finds that, prima facie, the State is guilty of unwarranted delay and, therefore, the exception recognized in Article 46 (2) (c) of the American Convention applies. C. Timeliness of the petition 34. Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention establishes that in order for a petition to be declared admissible it must be presented within six months counted from the date on which the petitioner was notified of the final decision that exhausted remedies in the domestic jurisdiction. This rule shall not apply when the Commission finds that one or more of the exceptions to the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies set forth in Article 46(2) of the Convention are applicable. In such cases, the Commission must determine whether the petition was presented within a reasonable time, in accordance with Article 32 of its Rules of Procedure. 35. The Commission concluded that in this case there has been an unwarranted delay, as envisaged at Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention. The initial petition was presented on September 22, 1994, that is to say, within a reasonable period of time since the first acts alleged by Mrs. Villaseñor 3 IACHR, Report No. 8/15, Petition 1413-04 and others. Admissibility, Gloria Jorge López et al., Peru, par. 303; and Report No. 108/10, Petition 744-98 and others, Admissibility, Orestes Auberto Urriola Gonzáles et al., Peru, August 26, 2010, par. 54. 5