appropriate venue to clarify the facts. Likewise, both the Inter-American Court and the Commission have reaffirmed the obligation of the State to investigate all violations of human rights, to try those responsible, indemnify the victims, and avoid impunity. 5It is the opinion of the Commission that the facts alleged by the petitioners in the instant case refer to an alleged violation, to an act that, according to the state’s domestic legislation, constitutes a crime liable toex officioprosecution.Hence, it is this criminal proceeding, moved forward by the State itself, which should be considered in order to determine the admissibility of the complaint. 24.With respect to the use of military courts to try the members of the Army allegedly implicated, the Commission has reiterated its opinion on several occasions that military jurisdiction is not an appropriate venue and hence does not provide adequate recourse to investigate, try, and punish violations of human rights provided for by the American Convention. 6 25.Therefore, considering the features of the instant case, it is the opinion of the Commission that the exception provided for by Article 46 (2) (a) of the American Convention is applicable; consequently the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies is not enforceable. The requirement established by Article 46 (1) (b) of the Convention, regarding the period of six months, is not applicable either, since the petition was lodged within the reasonable time period referred to by Article 32 (2) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure for those cases in which a final judgment has not been handed down before the lodging of the petition. 26.Finally, the appeal to the exceptions to the rule on the exhaustion of domestic remedies, found in Article 46(2) of the Convention, is closely related to the finding of possible violations to certain rights provided for therein, such as guarantees of access to justice. However, Article 46(2), by nature and purpose, is a norm with autonomous content, vis-à-vis the substantive norms of the Convention. Therefore, the decision as to whether the exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies in said Article are applicable to the case at hand must be made beforehand and separately from the examination of the merits of the case, since it relies on a standard of evaluation different from the one used to establish the existence of violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. It should be clarified that the causes and the effects that have impeded the exhaustion of domestic remedies in the instant case shall be examined, as appropriate, in the Report that the Commission shall adopt on the merits of the controversy, in order to establish whether they indeed are violations of the American Convention. 2. Duplication of proceedings andres judicata 27.The record of the petition does not contain any information which may tend to establish that the subject of the petition is pending in another international proceeding for settlement; or that it has been previously decided by the Inter-American Commission. Therefore, the IACHR concludes that the exceptions provided for by Articles 46(1)(d) and 47(c) of the American Convention are not applicable. 3. Characterization of the facts alleged 28.In the instant case, the petitioners contend that the State is responsible for alleged violations of the rights to personal integrity, to personal freedom, to due process, to protection of the honor and dignity, to protection of the family, of the right to property, of the right of women to a life free from violence, of the right to live free from torture, of the right to judicial protection, and of the obligation of the State to respect and guarantee the rights of the persons under its jurisdiction.The Mexican State, in turn, maintains that the process is still in the investigation stage, and that it is still carrying out proceedings to find those responsible. 5 IACHR, Report No. 54/01, Case 12,051, Maria Da Penha Fernandes, Brazil, April 16, 2001, para.43, citing I/A Court H.R.,Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C. No. 4, para. 176, and I/A Court H.R.,Godínez Cruz Case. Judgment of January 20, 1989.Series C No. 5, para.175; IACHR, Report Nº 53/01, Case 11,565, Ana, Beatriz and Celia González Pérez, México, April 4, 2001, para.84. 6 IACHR, Third Report on the Human Rights Situation in Colombia (1999), p. 175; Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Colombia (1993), p. 246; Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Brazil (1997), pp. 40-42. In addition, the Inter-American Court has confirmed that criminal military justice is an adequate venue only for the trial of members of the armed forces for crimes or offenses that by nature attempt against legally protected interests of military order. I/A Court H.R.,Durand and Ugarte Case. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, para.117. 5