ratification of the American Convention in 1978. Thus, the Commission concludes that it is competent ratione temporis to hear this case. B. Requirements for Admissibility of the Petition a. Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies 41. The State has not claimed that the domestic legal remedies in this case have not been exhausted, which is sufficient to deem the requirement as met. 42. With regard to the amnesty laws, the Commission also notes that Article 2 of Law No. 26492 of June 28, 1995, prohibited the judicial review of Law 26479. This gave rise to the exemption from the requirement for the remedies under domestic law to be exhausted set forth in Article 46(2)(b) of the Convention, in that the alleged victims were not allowed access to those remedies. 43. Regarding the alleged failure to investigate and punish the masterminds behind the La Cantuta massacre, the Commission notes that the trial in which certain individuals were convicted for the killings ended with a judgment by the Supreme Council of Military Justice on May 3, 1994. That judgment made no statement either convicting or acquitting those accused of having masterminded the massacre. Then, although a new investigation aimed at identifying the masterminds behind the incident could theoretically have been opened, Article 6 of Law No. 26479, in accordance with the terms of Article 3 of Law No. 26492, stipulates that the Peruvian courts are prohibited from beginning any such investigation. Thus, given that Peru’s internal legislation lacks an effective remedy for trying to determine the alleged responsibility of the masterminds, the exemption from the requirement of exhausting domestic law remedies, set forth in Article 46(2)(a), applies. 44. Based on these considerations, the Commission finds that, in the case at hand, the requirement for the exhaustion of domestic remedies set forth in Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention does not apply. b. Filing Period 45. With regard to the requirement set forth in Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention, under which a petition must be submitted within six months of the notification to the victim of the final decision by which domestic remedies are exhausted, the Commission also notes that this requirement is not applicable to the present case: since the exemptions from the required exhaustion of domestic remedies set forth in Articles 46(2)(a) and 46(2)(b) of the Convention apply, as indicated in the above paragraph, exemption from the aforesaid period for lodging the petition also applies, under Article 46(2) of the Convention. c. Duplication of Proceedings and Res Judicata 46. The Commission understands that the substance of the petition is not pending in any other international settlement proceeding, nor does it duplicate a petition already examined by this or any other international body. Thus, the requirements set forth in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) have also been met. d. Grounds of the Petition 47. The Commission believes that the petitioner’s report describes events that, if true, could constitute a violation of rights guaranteed by the Convention, in that as indicated by the analysis of the Commission’s competence ratione materiae to hear this case, the points on which the Commission is to decide are, first, whether the amnesty laws under which the individuals convicted of the La Cantuta massacre were released constitute a violation by Peru of the American Convention and, second, whether the failure to investigate the alleged masterminds behind the slaying constitutes a violation by the Peruvian State of rights enshrined by the Convention. 8