identify those domestic remedies that should have been exhausted, and demonstrate that they would have been effective under the circumstances. 9 62. The Commission recalls that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has also found that the mere existence of domestic remedies does not imply the obligation to exhaust them, because they may not be adequate and effective. If they are to be adequate, their functioning within domestic law must be suitable for protecting the legal situation infringed. An effective remedy, in turn, is one that is capable of producing the outcome for which it was established. 63. The State has cited judicial domestic remedies that were still available for the petitioner, but it has not proven their effectiveness. The IACHR therefore considers that domestic legal remedies have been exhausted. 2. Time limit for submission of the petition 64. The final judgment of the Constitutional Chamber was issued on March 15, 2000, but the petitioner argues that the parties were only notified of that decision in October 2000. Article 461.b establishes that the petition 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”. 65. The petitioner submitted his petition on January 19, 2001, within the time limit of sixmonth established by Article 46.1.b of the American Convention. 3. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 66. The Commission understands, according to the information contained in the submissions, that the matter is not pending settlement in another international proceeding, nor has it been previously decided by this or any other international body. The IACHR therefore considers that the requirements of Article 46.1.c and d of the American Convention are satisfied. 4. Characterization of the facts alleged 67. In the present case, the petitioner has presented a list of named victims, women and men seeking treatment for infertility, and has alleged that the actions of the State in prohibiting access to one of the treatments available constitute violations of Articles 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 11(2), 17, 24, 25, 26 and 32 of the American Convention, Articles 3, 10 and 15 of the Protocol of San Salvador, and Articles 1 and 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. 68. The Commission observes that the submissions of the petitioner concerning the rights of those named as victims relate principally to Articles 1, 2, 11, 17 and 24 of the American Convention. In particular, Article 17(2) of the American Convention indicates that the “right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to raise a family shall be recognized, if they meet the conditions required by domestic laws, insofar as such conditions do not affect the principle of nondiscrimination established in this Convention.” Developments in international law dating back to the Teheran Conference, the Cairo Programme of Action, and the Beijing Platform of Action, have recognized the right of couples and individuals: to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of reproductive and sexual health. It also includes the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion, and violence as expressed in human rights documents. (International Conference on Population and Development, Cairo, 1994.) 69. At the merits stage, the Commission will examine the general right to found a family set forth in the American Convention and other international human rights treaties, as well as in many constitutions, along with the right to protection for private and family life in light of the issues raised in the present petition. The rights at issue are not absolute; the particular question to be examined is whether State action to restrict individual access to measures in favor of family planning and childbearing is compatible with the terms of the American 9 I-A Court, Velasquez Rodriguez case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987, Series C., Nº 1, para. 88. 8