21. In the present case, the State has failed to provide any observations or information respecting the admissibility of Mr. Caesar’s claims. Nevertheless, based upon the extensive submissions provided by the Petitioners, it is clear to the Commission that the State’s legislation fails to afford due process for the protection of the rights alleged to have been violated in the Petitioners’ petition or that Mr. Caesar has been hindered from exhausting such remedies. The record before the Commission indicates that Mr. Caesar was precluded from pursuing his petition for Special Leave to Appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council by reason of the advice by Counsel that his case was unlikely to succeed and therefore did not merit the certificate necessary to seek leave to appeal. The State has not disputed these facts or otherwise demonstrated that remedies for the matters complained of in the Petitioners’ petition are available in fact or in law or have not been exhausted. 22. Based upon these circumstances, the Commission finds that the State’s legislation fails to afford due process for the protection of the rights alleged to have been violated in the Petitioners’ petition or that Mr. Caesar has been hindered from exhausting such remedies. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that that the exhaustion of domestic remedies requirement does not apply in the circumstances of this case, and therefore that the Petitioners’ claims are not barred under Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention or Article 31(1) of its Rules of Procedure. 3. Timeliness 23. In accordance with Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention and Article 32(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, the Commission shall consider those petitions that are lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the complaining party was notified of the final judgment at the domestic level. Article 46(2)(a) of the Convention and Article 32(2) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure provide, however, that in cases in which an exception to the exhaustion of domestic remedies applies, the petition shall be presented within a reasonable time, as determined by the Commission, considering the date on which the alleged violation of rights occurred and the circumstances of each case. 24. As noted above, the Commission has concluded that the Petitioners are exempted from the exhaustion of domestic remedies requirement in the circumstances of this case. As a consequence, the six-month period prescribed under the Convention and Rules is likewise inapplicable to the Petitioners’ complaint. 25. Further, after considering the circumstances of Mr. Caesar’s case, including in particular the fact that Mr. Caesar was not advised until November 9, 1998 of Counsel’s opinion on the merits in his case of a petition for Special Leave to Appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the Commission considers that his petition was lodged with the Commission within a reasonable time in compliance with Article 32(2) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. Accordingly, the Commission finds no bar to the admissibility of the petition under Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention and Article 32 of the Commission’s Rules. 4. Colorable Claim 26. Articles 46(b) and 47(c) of the Convention and Articles 34(a) and (b) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure require the Commission to consider a petition to be inadmissible if the petition does not state facts that tend to establish a violation of the rights guaranteed by the Convention or other applicable instruments, or if the statements of the petitioner or of the state indicate that the petition is manifestly groundless or obviously out of order. 27. The Petitioners allege that the State is responsible for violations of Mr. Caesar’s rights under Articles 2, 5, 8 and 25 of the Convention the particulars of which are summarized in Part III.A above. The State has failed to provide any observations or information on the violations alleged by Mr. Caesar. 28. Based upon the information provided by the Petitioners, and without prejudging the merits of the matter, the Commission finds that the Petitioners’ petition contains factual allegations, 5