which the party alleging violation of his rights was notified of the final judgment. The six-month rule guarantees certainty and legal validity once a decision has been adopted. 73. According to Article 32.2 of the IACHR Rules of Procedure, in those cases in which the exceptions to the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies are applicable, the petition shall be presented within a reasonable period of time, as determined by the Commission. This article provides that to determine this, the Commission “shall consider the date on which the alleged violation of rights occurred and the circumstances in each case.” 74. In the instant case, it is necessary to consider the deadline for presentation of the petition in connection with each of the three alleged matters under examination. 75. Insofar as the death sentence is concerned, the IACHR has established that domestic remedies were exhausted with the Constitutional Court’s decision of July 4, 2001, of which the alleged victim’s counsel was notified on December 12, 2002,29 and the request made to the IACHR in case “12.402 - Ronald Ernesto Raxcacó Reyes” to include Mr. Ruiz Fuentes as a victim in this proceeding was made on January 2, 2003.30 Therefore, the Commission finds the requirement is satisfied with regard to this point. 76. As for the alleged torture of Mr. Ruiz Fuentes, the Commission has found that the exception of Article 46.2.c is applicable; consequently, it must consider whether the petition was submitted within a reasonable period of time considering the circumstances of the case. On this matter, as noted in the discussion on exhaustion of domestic remedies, the alleged victim had an expectation and procedural interest that the alleged violation of his rights would be duly investigated when he denounced them to a judge. As of the date of presentation of the petition to the IACHR, as analyzed ut supra, the investigation was prima facie inadequate, so that the lack of judicial response by the State to guarantee the alleged violation of Mr. Ruiz Fuentes’rights would have continued to the time when the complaints were presented and thereafter. The Commission finds these elements sufficient to conclude that the petition was presented within a reasonable period of time. 77. Concerning the alleged summary execution, the IACHR found the exception of Article 46.2.c to be applicable, and therefore, in analyzing the reasonableness of the period of time in which the petition was submitted, it must also take into account the specific circumstances of the matter that were presented for its consideration. In this regard, and since the respective facts are still in the investigation stage, with an unwarranted delay in measures and investigations for their resolution, the period of time within which the petition concerning these facts was presented is reasonable. 3. Duplication of proceedings and international res judicata 78. Article 46.1.c requires that for a petition to be admitted it is necessary that its subject “is not pending in another international proceeding for 29 IACHR, Report on Merits 49/03, case 12.402 Ronald Ernesto Raxcacó Reyes, Guatemala, October 8, 2003, para. 29. 30 IACHR, Report on Merits 49/03, case 12.402 Ronald Ernesto Raxcacó Reyes, Guatemala, October 8, 2003. Presentation by the petitioners on January 2, 2003. 13