9 45. On this point, the IACHR notes that in cases involving torture – a publicly actionable offense in Mexico – the appropriate and effective remedy is normally an investigation and a criminal trial, and the State has the obligation of bringing and pursuing such action. In this case, none of the prosecutions brought w ere for the crime of torture, but rather for “ abuse of authority” or “ lew d acts.” In addition, the Commission recalls that w hen the state authorities resolved to shelve the investigation on March 8, 2007, they noted the lack of evidence for establishing the crime of torture. 46. Regarding the involvement of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, the IACHR notes that its participation w as not jurisdictional in nature. Regarding the involvement of the National Human Rights Commission, the IACHR notes that the CNDH is not a jurisdictional organ and thus does not afford a judicial remedy in the sense of Article 46 of the American Convention. 47. The Commission notes that more than five years after the facts of the case occurred, various formalities to determine responsibilities are still being carried out. The IACHR holds that that period of time is sufficient to trigger the exception to the rule requiring the exhaustion of domestic remedies, pursuant to the provisions of Article 46(2)(c) of the Convention. 48. Finally, the triggering of the exceptions to the domestic remedy exhau stion rule provided for in Article 46(2) of the Convention is closely related to the finding of possible violations to certain rights provided for therein, such as guarantees of access to justice. How ever, Article 46(2), by nature and purpose, is a norm w ith autonomous content vis-à-vis the substantive norms of the Convention. Therefore, the determination as to w hether the exceptions to the exhaustion of domestic remedies rule stipulated in that provision apply in this case must be made separately, and prior to the examination on the merits, since it depends upon a standard of judgment distinct from that used to determine the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. Note that the causes and effects that have prevented the exhaustion of domestic remedies in the case at hand w ill be analyzed, as relevant, in the Commission’ s report on the merits of the controversy, in determining w hether or not the American Convention w as in fact violated. 2. Filing period 49. Regarding the requirement set in Article 46 (1)(b) of the Convention, w hereby petitions must be lodged w ithin a period of six months after the victim is notified of the final judgment w ith w hich domestic remedies are exhausted, the Commission finds that compliance w ith that deadline is not applicable and that the petition w as lodged w ithin the reasonable time referred to in Article 32(2) of its Rules of Procedure for cases in w hich final judgment has not yet been handed dow n at the time the petition is presented. 3. Duplication of international proceedings and res judicata 50. Nothing in the case file indicates that the substance of the petition is pending in any other international settlement proceeding or that it is substantially the same as any other petition already examined by this Commission or another international body. Hence, the requirements set forth in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention have been met. 4. Colorable claim 51. The Commission believes that at this stage in the procedure it is not appropriate to rule on w hether or not the purported violations of the alleged victims’ rights actually took place. For the purposes of admissibility, the IACHR must at this time determine solely w hether the petition describes facts that, if proven, could tend to establish violations of the American Convention, as