6, 2006, the alleged victims filled an amparo motion, identified as 240/2006, protesting the deprivation of liberty by arbitrary detention (arraigo), which was dismissed by the First District Criminal Amparo Court in the Federal District because at the time of the ruling the alleged victims had already been presented to the judge in the case. The Commission also notes that on April 5, 2006, the alleged victims presented an amparo motion, identified as 350/2006, against the detention order issued by the PGR extrajudicially, which was denied by the First District Criminal Amparo Court in the Federal District because the detainees were deprived of liberty under the arraigo order issued by the Judge of the Fourteenth Federal and Criminal Proceedings District Court in the Federal District. Based on the available information, this decision was appealed to First Collegiate Court in Criminal Matters in the Federal District, which upheld it. In addition, amparo motion 413/2006, which was filed against the order and authorization for transfer to a Federal Maximum Security Prison, was rejected by the First District Criminal Amparo Court in the Federal District. 29. Similarly, the IACHR notes that at various stages of the process, e.g., the various amparo and appeal motions, the alleged victims challenged aspects related to due process guarantees. Specifically, the available information indicates that on March 15, 2006, the alleged victims presented an amparo motion, identified as 279/2006, protesting obstacles to access by their lawyer to the actions of the preliminary investigation against them. That remedy was dismissed by the First District Criminal Amparo Court in the Federal District because as stated by the petitioner and not challenged by the State, “at the time of the ruling the alleged victims had already been presented to the judge in the case.” The available information also indicates that the alleged victims filed an appeal motion against the formal prison order to the First Criminal Court of the First Circuit, which decided to reiterate the charges for violation of the Federal Law against Organized Crime and lift the suspension of the accused’s political rights. In addition, to challenge the conviction of May 14, 2008, by the Twelfth District Court Judge in Veracruz, the alleged victims filed an appeal motion. That appeal was resolved on October 16, 2008, by the Judge of the Second Criminal Court of the Seventh Circuit, absolving the alleged victims of the organized crime offense and confirming the penalty for bribery. The Commission understands that with this partially favorable appellate sentence, the criminal proceeding against the alleged victims was concluded. 30. In this case, the State said that if the alleged victims considered that this resolution violated their human rights, they should have filed an amparo appeal to challenge that legal decision. On this point, the Commission notes that the human rights violations alleged by the petitioner did not stem from that verdict, but from a series of allegations throughout their allegedly arbitrary detention, arraigo, and supposed irregularities in their criminal proceeding, allegations with respect to which the IACHR notes that the alleged victims exhausted ordinary remedies and presented at least four amparo appeals that were denied or dismissed. Based on the available information, the Commission notes that the result of the bribery conviction contained in the appellate verdict had apparently been accepted by the alleged victims, since it was not challenged at the domestic level, so the IACHR considers that matter excluded from the merits phase. 31. Taking into account the remedies applied and exhausted in this matter, based on Article 46 of the Convention, the Commission concludes that the requirement for prior exhaustion of domestic remedies has been satisfied, in the terms set forth above. Therefore, the IACHR confirms that domestic remedies afforded by Mexican legislation have been exhausted and the petition satisfies the requirement established in Article 46.1.a of the Convention. 2. Deadline for presentation of the petition 32. Article 46.1 of the American Convention requires that in order for petitions to be admissible they be submitted within six months of the date the petitioner is notified of the final judgment that exhausts domestic remedies. In this case, the petition was submitted to the IACHR on February 23, 2007, and domestic remedies were exhausted on October 16, 2008 with the verdict of the Second Criminal Court of the Seventh Circuit, which resolved the appeal motion. Therefore, domestic remedies were exhausted while the case was being examined for admissibility. Under these circumstances, the Commission has consistently held that