stated that this case now stands as res judicata. In the Commission’s view, the State’s claims are contradictory, in that the status of res judicata, intended to protect judicial rulings 6 and, consequently, to protect the principle of legal security, applies to final judgments with respect to which no ordinary or extraordinary remedies can be brought. 7 Hence, the argument that the case is now res judicata implies accepting that the conviction condemning Ronald Raxacacó to the death penalty is final and, as such, cannot admit any remedy. 28. From its study of the trial documents submitted by the petitioners, the IACHR has seen that the alleged victim’s defense did, in fact, challenge the imposition of the death sentence and that this challenge was ultimately dismissed by Guatemala’s Supreme Court of Justice; additionally, it was also rejected by the Constitutional Court, in a different set of proceedings from those pursued before the criminal courts. The IACHR therefore concludes that with the judgment of June 20, 2000 in which the Supreme Court of Justice ruled on the appeal for annulment, and with the decision of July 12, 2001 declaring the inadmissibility of the amparo suit filed against that previous judgment, all domestic remedies were duly exhausted in compliance with the requirements set by Article 46 of the Convention. 2. Timeliness of the Petition 29. Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention rules that for a petition or communication to be admitted by the Commission, it must be lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the alleged victim of a rights violation was notified of the final judgment. As the Commission has previously stated, this rule exists to allow for juridical certainty while still providing sufficient time for potential petitioners to consider their position. 8 In the instant case, the petitioners lodged their complaint with the Commission on January 28, 2002, while the judgment handed down by the Constitutional Court of Guatemala–the final decision given in the domestic proceedings–was dated June 28, 2001 and was notified to the alleged victim on July 4 of that year, as shown by the deed included in the case file. In other words, the complaint was lodged six months and twenty-four days after notification of the aforesaid judgment. 30. The IACHR maintains that the conventional deadlines, including Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention, are to be strictly observed and so, in principle, all petitions presented after the six-month cut-off date must be declared inadmissible. However, in accordance with the guidelines set by the jurisprudence of the inter-American system, within certain timely and reasonable limits, and provided that a suitable balance between justice and legal certainty is preserved, some delays may be excused. 9 In the case at hand, in light of considerations both substantive and adjective, the Commission believes it correct to apply the rule of reasonableness and to hold that this delay does not upset the balance that the system’s bodies must maintain between the protection of human rights and the principle of legal certainty. 10 31. First of all, the Commission notes the nature of this case, in which recourse has been made to the regional system in order to protect the right to life of a person sentenced to death under proceedings that were allegedly in violation of the American Convention. Secondly, the Commission notes that in its reply, the State did not argue that the deadline had expired and that on the contrary, it claimed that the available domestic remedies had not been exhausted. In this connection, it should be noted that in the judgment on preliminary objections in the case of Neira Alegría et al., the Inter-American Court ruled that since the six-month period depends on the exhaustion of domestic remedies, it is for the Government to demonstrate to 6 Víctor Fairén Guillen, Teoría General del Derecho Procesal, Universidad Autónoma de México, 1992, p. 519. In this regard, the jurist Farién Guillen notes that res judicata means finality, no challenges, no appeals, and the preclusion of legal remedies. Víctor Fairén Guillen, Teoría General del Derecho Procesal, Universidad Autónoma de México, 1992, p. 520. 8 IACHR, Case of María Eugenia Morales de Sierra, Report on Admissibility No. 28/98, May 6, 1998, paragraph 29. 9 Inter-Am.Ct.H.R., Cayara Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of February 3, 1993, paragraph 42. 10 In this regard, see: Inter-Am.Ct.H.R., “The Last Temptation of Christ” Case, Judgment of February 5, 2001, paragraph 41. 7 5