established, but those remedies did not provide effective protection. The many actions documented by the petitioner show, in the view of the Commission, many occurrences that are not isolated but rather permanent in nature, within a general situation of defenselessness of the ancestral lands of the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz. 49. Accordingly, considering the many remedies attempted by the alleged victims in the present case, the Commission finds that the exceptions in Article 46.2.a and (b) of the Convention are applicable, thereby rendering inapplicable the requirements of the Convention on exhaustion of internal remedies. 2. Filing deadline 50. Article 46.1.b of the Convention stipulates as a requirement for admissibility of a petition that 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." Under Article 46.2, the provision of Article 46.1.b does 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 under the aforementioned remedies. 51. In this case, compliance with Article 46.1.b of the Convention is connected with application of the exceptions to the exhaustion of internal remedies established by the Convention itself, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs. 52. Consequently, the Commission finds that the petition is not subject to the requirement of Article 46.1.b of the Convention and has been filed within a reasonable time frame. 3. Duplication of procedures and res iudicata 53. An admissibility requirement under Article 46.1.c of the Convention is "that the subject of the petition or communication is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement." 54. The Commission believes that the subject of this petition is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement and does not duplicate a petition already examined by the Commission or by another international body. It concludes, consequently, that the requirement of Article 46.1.c has been met. 4. Characterization of the alleged events 55. In order to admit a petition the Commission must determine whether the events described in it tend to establish a violation of rights protected by the Convention, as required by Article 47.b, or whether the petition should be dismissed because it is "manifestly unfounded" or out of order, as prescribed by Article 47.b. 56. The Commission is of the view that the petitioner's complaints, should they meet all requirements and be shown to be true, could tend to establish a violation of rights protected by the Convention. The standard to be used in making this determination differs from the one employed to rule on the merits. The Commission must make a prima facieassessment to determine whether the complaint shows an apparent or possible violation of a right protected by the Convention. This is a summary review and entails no prejudgment on the merits of the dispute. 57. The Commission believes that, if the facts alleged by the petitioner are proven, they might constitute a violation of rights protected by Articles 8, 25 and 21 of the Convention in relation to Articles 1 and 2 thereof. Consequently, the requirement of Article 47.b of the Convention has been met. 8