44. In view of the characteristics of this case, the Commission considers that the exception stipulated in Article 46.2.a of the American Convention is applicable, hence the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies cannot be invoked. 45. It only remains to indicate that invocation of the exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies stipulated in Article 46.2 of the Convention is closely linked to the determination of possible violations of certain rights established therein, such as guarantees of access to justice. However, Article 46.2, by its nature and purpose, is a provision with autonomous content vis-vis the substantive provisions of the Convention. Therefore, whether the exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of the domestic remedies established in that Article are applicable to the case in point must be determined previously and separately from the analysis of the merits of the case, since it relies on a different standard of evaluation from the one used to determine a violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. It should be clarified that the causes and effects that prevented exhaustion of domestic remedies in this case will be examined, as relevant, in the report adopted by the Commission on the merits of the case, to determine if they effectively constitute violations of the American Convention. 2. Deadline for presentation 46. Pursuant to Article 46.1.b of the American Convention, a requirement for admissibility of the petitions is that they be lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the party alleging violation of his rights was notified of the final judgment. Article 32 of the Commissions Rules of Procedures establishes that 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. For this purpose, the Commission shall consider the date on which the alleged violation of rights occurred and the circumstances of each case. 47. In the present case, the Commission decided on the applicability of the exception to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies. Considering that the military courts took the initiative to open the investigation into the events that occurred on June 18, 2000; the actions taken by the alleged victims to petition the State; the evolution and continuity of the denounced situation; the resolution on January 3, 2005, the Supreme Court of Justice that decided to deny the motion because the military court had begun to litigate the case prior to the civilian court; the decision on May 27, 2005, of Appellate Joint Armed Forces and National Police Court Martial amended the judgment of the court of first instance and ordered the acquittal of the convicted; and the date the petition was lodged with the IACHR, the Commission is of the view that the complaint was presented within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, the requirement regarding the deadline for presentation of the petition was met, pursuant to the terms of Article 32 of its Rules of Procedure. 3. Duplication of international proceedings and res judicata 48. Article 46.1.c states that admission of petitions 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 shall not admit a petition that is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization. The petitioners have expressly stated in their petition that they have not appealed to another international organization with regard to the events that are the subject of this petition. Nor is there evidence in the case records that the subject of the petition is pending a decision in another international proceeding, or that it reproduces a petition already examined by this or another international organization. Consequently, the requirements established in the referenced articles have been met. 4. Characterization of the alleged events 49. As the Commission has already indicated in other cases, at this stage of the procedure, it is not relevant to verify whether or not there was a violation of the American Convention. For the 8