ineffective.13 Further, the information supplied by the State does not say whether investigations have been launched into the allegations of illegal searches, invasion of home and destruction of property. 28. Therefore, given the characteristics of the present case and the period of time that has passed since the facts in the petition were alleged to have occurred, the Commission finds that the exception allowed under Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention does apply because of the unwarranted delay in domestic judicial proceedings. Hence, the rule requiring exhaustion of location remedies does not apply. 29. Invoking the exceptions allowed under Article 46(2) to the rule requiring exhaustion of local remedies is closely connected to the determination of possible violations of certain rights contained in the Convention, such as the guarantees of access to justice. However, Article 46(2) of the Convention, by its nature and purpose, has a content that is independent of and separate from the substantive norms of the Convention. Therefore, the determination as to whether the exceptions to the domestic remedies rule apply to the case in question must be made prior to and separate from the examination of the merits, since it hinges on a standard of assessment different from the one used to establish the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. The factors that prevented exhaustion of domestic remedies and their effects will be examined in the report the Commission adopts on the merits of the case, in order to determine whether they constitute violations of the American Convention. 2. Timeliness of the petition 30. The Convention provides that for a petition to be admissible, it must be presented within six months of the date on which the party alleging violation of his or her rights was notified of the final judgment by the domestic courts. In the case under examination, the IACHR has established that the Article 46(2)(c) exception to the rule requiring exhaustion of local remedies applies. In such cases, Article 32(2) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure provides that “the petition shall be presented within a reasonable period of time, as determined by the Commission.” To that end, the Commission must consider the date on which the alleged violation of rights occurred and the circumstances of each case. 31. In the present case, the petition was lodged on October 27, 2004, and the facts alleged therein were said to have occurred between November 2002 and June 2003. Given the context and characteristics of this case, and the fact that the investigation is still in its preliminary phase, the Commission finds that the petition was presented within a reasonable period of time and the admissibility requirement that concerns the timing of the complaint is therefore satisfied 3. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 32. Nothing in the case file suggests that the subject matter of the petition is pending with another international proceeding for settlement or that it is substantially the same as one already examined by this or some other international body. Therefore, the requirements established in articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention have been satisfied. 4. Characterization of the facts alleged 33. The petitioner’s allegations regarding the alleged violation of the right to humane treatment, the right to freedom of association, the right freedom of movement and residence, the right to property, the right to a fair trial and the right judicial protection, state facts that could tend to establish a violation of the rights protected under articles 5(1), 8(1) 16, 21(1), 21(2), 22(1) and 25 of the American Convention, in combination with Article 1(1) thereof. The petition does not appear to be either manifestly groundless or obviously out of order. The Commission therefore I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, paragraph 93. 13 6