44. The Commission believes that in the case under consideration, exhaustion of domestic remedies is closely linked to the merits since the State has the obligation to provide for effective judicial remedies, in accordance with the American Convention. Thus the aspects of this case related to the effectiveness of domestic remedies will be examined along with the merits. 45. Taking into consideration all the elements examined, the Commission deems that the admissibility requirement on exhaustion of domestic remedies as stipulated in Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention has been met. b. Timeliness of Petition 46. Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention establishes that for a petition to be admissible, 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.” 47. The Commission notes that the petitioners appeared before the Commission within the period stipulated in Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention. The Procurator’s decision was made on 20 July 1998 and the petition was lodged with the Commission on 28 October1998. 48. In consequence, the Commission deems that the admissibility requirement contained in Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention stipulating that a petition must be lodged within six months has been met. c. Duplication of Procedures and Res Judicata 49. Article 46(1)(c) stipulates that for a petition or communication to be admitted by the Commission, the subject of it cannot be pending in another international proceeding. Article 47(d) stipulates that the Commission shall declare inadmissible any petition or communication that is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization. 50. From the submissions of the parties and documents on file it can be ascertained that the petition is not pending in another international proceeding or settlement, and that it is not substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization. The Commission thus deems that the admissibility requirements contained in Article 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the American Convention on Human Rights have been met. d. Characterization of the Alleged Facts 51. The Commission deems that, in principle, the acts outlined in the petitioners’ statement of fact, if proven, could be characterized as a violation of the rights guaranteed by the American Convention. The Commission believes that the allegations of violation of the right to nationality and the lack of suitable and effective domestic remedies must be examined during consideration of the merits of the case. V. CONCLUSIONS 52. In virtue of the above considerations, the Commission concludes that the petition complies with the requirements of admissibility set forth in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Thus the Commission is competent to hear case No. 12,189. 53. Based on the arguments of fact and of law outlined above, and, without prejudice to the merits of the case, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, DECIDES TO: 7