rule ensures legal certainty and stability once a decision has been made. The rule does not apply when an ongoing situation is alleged, wherein the rights of the victim suffer uninterrupted injury. Pursuant to Article 32(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR, in cases in which the exceptions to the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies are applicable, the petition must be presented within a reasonable period of time, as determined by the Commission. 39. As for the petition being examined, the Commission established the State’s tacit waiver of its right to file an objection based on failure to exhaust domestic remedies. As the Convention’s requirements regarding exhaustion of domestic remedies and presentation of a petition within six months of the decision exhausting domestic jurisdiction are independent, the Commission must determine whether the petition under review was submitted within a reasonable period of time. This is because, having established the State’s waiver of an objection based on exhaustion of domestic remedies, we have no specific date from which to determine the six month period. The lack of a specific date does not relieve the petitioner of the requirement of timely submission. In this respect, given the particular circumstances of the filing of the petition, which include the filing of various habeas corpus appeals both before and after submission of the petition, and considering that the petitioners allege that they are in a situation of continuous infringement of their rights, the Commission believes that the complaint was filed within a reasonable period of time. 3. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 40. Article 46(1)(c) establishes that admission of a petition is subject to the requirement that the matter “is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement” and Article 47(d) of the Convention stipulates that the Commission should not admit a petition that “is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization.” In the instant case, the parties have not claimed, nor does the record show, the existence of either of these two circumstances of inadmissibility. 4. Characterization of the alleged facts 41. Article 47(b) of the American Convention provides that allegations that do not assert facts tending to establish a violation of rights are inadmissible. 42. The examination of the matter by the Commission, at this stage in the proceeding, is not intended to establish whether a violation of rights was committed, but rather to establish whether the facts alleged, should they be proven, tend to demonstrate the violation of a protected right. This is necessarily a preliminary or prima facie analysis and does not imply prejudgment as to the merits of the case. 43. The Commission wishes to note at this point in the proceeding that when a State deprives an individual of freedom, it puts itself in a special position as guarantor and must seek, by all means within its reach, to maintain the individual’s enjoyment of their rights. Therefore, the State has the obligation ergaomnes6 to protect inmates from attacks on their lives and integrity that may be committed by third parties, including other inmates.7 44. In light of these considerations, the Commission notes that the facts alleged by the petitioners regarding the conditions of detention at the Penitentiary of Mendoza and the Gustavo André Unit in Lavalle could characterize violations of the American Convention. 6 See on this subject, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, UrsoBranco Prison Case, Order of July 7, 2004, Concurring Opinion of Judge Antônio Augusto CançadoTrindade, para. 9. 7 See on this subject, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Walter David Bulacio Case, Judgment of September 18, 2003, Series C No. 100, para. 126; Cantoral Benavides Case, Judgment of August 18, 2000, Series C No. 69, para. 45;Durand and Ugarte Case, Judgment of August 16, 2000, Series C No. 68, para. 45; Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case, Judgment of May 30, 1999, Serie C No. 52, para.61; NeiraAlegría Case, Judgment of January 19, 1995, Series C No. 20, para. 60; See also IACHR, Report N° 41/99, Case 11.491, Minors in Detention, Honduras, March 10, 1999, para. 125. 7