and effective, according to international human rights standards, to remedy the violations that Ms. Atala alleges. Nor does the State explain how a new custody suit could offer a different outcome or have a reasonable likelihood of success, given the precedent already set by the Supreme Court of Justice in Chile. 43 53. The Commission also notes that Ms. Atala challenges the proceeding and the decision issued in the custody suit, which she litigated for nearly two years. She claims that in said proceeding she and her daughters were the victims of a number of human rights violations with consequences that persist to this day. In that connection, Ms. Atala challenges before the Commission a proceeding that passed through all of its stages and a new trial would not offer the possibility to remedy the violations that she alleges. 54. The Commission also finds in its decision that the facts in this case have been the subject of a decision by the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile, which is the highest appellate court in that country, a fact undisputed by the State. Furthermore, the State has not suggested that Ms. Atala invoked the wrong remedies in pursuing her claims at the domestic level. 55. Based on the aforementioned factors, the Commission concludes that the petitioners duly exhausted all the remedies that were available to them in the legal system in Chile. Therefore, their complaints to the Commission are not barred from consideration by the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies provided by Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention. 2. Timeliness of the petition 56. Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention provides that the petition must be filed within a period of six months from the date on which the petitioners were notified of the final judgment that exhausted domestic remedies. The instant petition was submitted on November 24, 2004, within six months after the Supreme Court ruling of May 31, 2004. Consequently, that requirement has been met. 3. Duplication 57. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the subject matter of the petition is pending in another international proceeding for settlement, or is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization. Therefore, the requirements established in Articles 46(1)(c) of the American Convention are met. 4. Colorable Claim 58. In the instant case, the petitioners allege that several rights protected by the American Convention were violated by the discriminatory ruling of the Chilean Supreme Court to the detriment of Ms. Atala and her daughters. In particular, the petitioners allege violations of the right to a fair trial, the right to personal integrity, right to protection of the honor and the dignity, right to privacy, rights of the family, right to equal protection, and rights of the child. The State, for its part, argues that the petition should be declared inadmissible because it does not allege facts which constitute violations of human rights. 43 In its jurisprudence, the Commission has shared the opinion of the European Court of Human Rights that the petitioner may be exempted from the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of a petition when the record clearly shows that no action would have a reasonable likelihood of success in light of the case law of the highest judicial instance in the State. See, for example, Petition 1490-05, Jessica González v. United States (Admissibility), Annual Report of the IACHR 2008, par. 50; Case 11.193, Report 51/00, Gary Graham v. United States (Admissibility), Annual Report of the IACHR 2000, par. 60, which cites European Court of Human Rights, Cases of Wilde, Oomas and Versyp, 10 June 1971, Publ. E.V.H.R. Ser. A, Vol.12, p. 34, pars. 37, 62; European Court of Human Rights, Avan Oosterwijck v. Belgium, Judgment (Preliminary Objections), 6 November 1980, Case Nº 7654/76, par. 37. See, also, Case 11.753, Report 108/00, Ramón Martinez Villareal v. United States (Admissibility), Annual Report of the IACHR 2000, par. 70 12