must never lead to a halt or delay that would render international action in support of the victim … ineffective.” 7 41. Thus, without prejudice to the future disposition of the Commission on the merits of the case, the Commission finds that there has been an unwarranted delay in the judicial proceedings, thereby excusing the invocation of additional exceptional remedies. It must be noted that, while the application of this exception is closely linked to questions concerning timely access to judicial protection and guarantees, the former is decided under the admissibility criteria of the system, which are distinct from those applied at the merits stage. The causes that impeded the timely exhaustion of domestic remedies, and any eventual consequences shall be analyzed to the extent appropriate when the Commission examines the merits of this case. 2. Time period for submission of the petition 42. In accordance with Article 46.1.b of the Convention, a petition must be presented in a timely manner to be admitted, namely, within six months from the date on which the complaining party was notified of the final judgment at the domestic level. The six months rule ensures legal certainty and stability once a decision has been taken. 43. Article 32 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure sets forth the foregoing principle, and indicates that this rule does not apply in matters “in which the exceptions to the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies are applicable.” In such an instance, Article 32 of the Rules establishes that the deadline for presentation shall be “within a reasonable period of time, in the Commission’s judgment, as from the date on which the alleged violation of rights has occurred, considering the circumstances of each specific case.” 44. In the present case, the decision at second instance was issued on November 23, 2000, and subsequently notified to the petitioner. The Commission has determined that the exhaustion of additional extraordinary remedies was excused due to prolonged duration of the ordinary proceedings. The petition was filed at the National Office of the OAS in Buenos Aires on July 18, 2001. The sentence was not executed in March of 2003, subsequent to the filing of the petition and the initiation of its processing. Under those circumstances, the Commission deems that the petition was filed within a reasonable time, and that the requirements of Article 46.1.b have been met. 3. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 45. Article 46.1.c sets forth that admission of a petition is subject to the requirement that the subject “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 which “is substantially the same as one previously studied by” it “or by another international organization.” In the present case, the parties have not claimed and the proceedings do not indicate the existence of either of these circumstances of inadmissibility. 4. Characterization of the facts alleged 46. Article 47.b of the American Convention provides that allegations which do not state facts tending to establish a violation shall not be admitted. It is not necessary for a petitioner to identify specific articles of the Convention in his or her pleadings; Article 28 of the Commission’s Rules of 7 I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 93; Godínez Cruz Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 3, para. 93. As the Commission has indicated, remedies which are unduly delayed essentially lose their efficacy.See, for example, IACHR, Report Nº 27/99, Admissibility, Case 11.697, Ramón Mauricio García-Prieto Giralt, El Salvador, 9 March 1999, para. 47 8