7 of evidence by the judicial authorities in the, supposedly, still continuing investigation to identify the responsible individuals. With regard to the obligation of the State to investigate, the Inter-American Court has indicated that an investigation “must have an objective and be assumed by the State as its own legal duty and not as a step taken by private interests that depends upon the initiative of the victim or his family or upon their offer of proof, without an effective search for the proof by the government.”8 32. Therefore, given the characteristics of the instant case, the still pending nature of an open investigation without any information regarding specific measures since 1990, and the amount of time elapsed since the facts that are the basis of the petition occurred, the Commission considers that the exception established in Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention with regard to unwarranted delay by the domestic criminal proceedings to render a decision is applicable, and, therefore, the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies does not apply. 33. The claiming of exceptions to the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies established in Article 46(2) of the Convention is closely linked to the determination of possible violations of certain rights enshrined in the Convention, such as the guarantee of access to justice. However, Article 46(2), by its nature and purpose, is a norm with autonomous content vis à vis the substantive norms of the Convention. Therefore, the determination of whether the exceptions to the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies apply to the case in question must be made prior to and separate from the analysis on the merits of the case, since it depends on a different standard from that used to determine the possible violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. 2. Time period to submit the petition 34. The American Convention establishes that for a petition to be declared admissible by the Commission, it must be lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the alleged victim was notified of the final judgment. In the complaint being examined, the IACHR has determined the applicability of the exceptions to the exhaustion of domestic remedies in accordance with Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention. Article 32 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission establishes that in cases in which the exceptions to prior exhaustion of domestic remedies apply, the petition must be lodged within a reasonable period of time, as determined by the Commission. To that effect, the Commission must take into account the date on which the presumed rights violation occurred and the circumstances of each case. 35. In the instant case, the petition was received on November 8, 1994, and the facts that are the basis of the complaint occurred on November 10, 1990, and their impact in terms of the alleged lack of administration of justice extends to this date. Therefore, based on the context and the characteristics of the instant case regarding the presumed disappearance of César Gustavo Garzón Guzmán, as well as on the fact that the investigation remains in the preliminary stage and, therefore, presumably pending, the Commission considers that the petition was lodged within a reasonable period of time and that the admissibility requirement regarding the deadline to submit the petition has been met. 3. Duplication of proceedings and international res judicata 36. The Commission takes note that the State alleged that the Commission was not competent to hear the petition due to pending international litigation before the United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances based on a complaint against the Ecuadorian State regarding the disappearance of César Gustavo Garzón Guzmán. Article 46(1)(c) of 8 IA Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Judgment dated July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, par. 177.