7 2. Deadline for filing a petition with the Commission 36. Article 46(b) of the American Convention establishes that in order for the Commission to find a petition to be admissible, it must be lodged within six months of the date on which the alleged victim was notified of the final decision. In the complaint in question, the IACHR has established that application of the exception to exhaustion of domestic remedies pursuant to Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention applies. In this regard, Article 32 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure establishes that in cases in which the exceptions to prior exhaustion of domestic remedies are applicable, the petition must be lodged within a reasonable period of time, as determined by the Commission. For that purpose, the Commission will consider the date on which the alleged violation of rights occurred and the circumstances of each case. 37. In the present case, the petition was received on April 23, 2003 and the alleged facts that are the subject of the complaint occurred on March 1, 1997. It should be noted that fourteen years after the facts occurred, their effects -in terms of the alleged failure to administer justice and to impose an effective punishment to the ones responsible- have extended to this day 6. Therefore, in view of the circumstances and the characteristics of this case, the Commission considers that the petition was lodged within a reasonable period of time and that that the admissibility requirement referring to the deadline for filing has been satisfied. 3. Duplication of procedures and res judicata 38. The case records do not contain any information that would lead one to determine that this case is pending other international settlement procedures, or that it replicates a petition already examined by this Commission. Therefore, the IACHR concludes that the provisions of Articles 46.1(d) and 47(d) of the Convention are not applicable 4. Characterization of the alleged facts 39. The State alleges that this petition does not tend to establish a violation in view of the fact that there was a domestic criminal police proceeding which redressed the alleged violations. The petitioners, on the other hand, allege that the crime remains unpunished, due to defects in the police criminal proceeding, and to the fact that the State did not take steps to execute the judgment. In view of the information presented by the parties and the nature of the case under consideration, the IACHR finds that in the case in point, it is required to determine that the petitioners’ allegations regarding the alleged violation of the rights to life and to humane treatment would characterize violations of the rights protected in Articles 4 and 5, considered in accordance with Article 1.1 of the American Convention, to the detriment of Aníbal Alonso Aguas Acosta. 40. Moreover, it must establish if the allegations of the petitioners could characterize a violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, considered in relation to its Article 1.1, and if, according to the principle of iura novit curia, the facts would characterize violations of Article 5 of that instrument, to the detriment of the family members of the alleged victim 7. 6 CIDH, Informe No. 86/07, Petición 680-05, Elías Lindt López Pita y Luis Alberto Shinín Laso, Ecuador, 17 de octubre de 2007, párr. 58. 7 Pursuant to Article 35.1 of the Rules of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and its recent jurisprudence, the IACHR includes as victims the relatives of the alleged victims. See I/A Court H.R., Case of Radilla Pacheco v Mexico. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, paras 161 and 162. Cfr. Case of Castillo Páez v Peru. Judgment of November 3, 1997.