35. The Commission considers that the requirement specified in Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention has been met. 2. Deadline for lodging the petition 36. With regard to the requirement in Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention, which stipulates that the petition must be lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the victim was notified of the final decision on exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Commission confirms its position as follows: noncompliance with a final judicial decision constitutes a continued violation by the persisting States and is a permanent infringement of Article 25 of the Convention, which establishes the right to effective judicial protection. Consequently, the requirement pertaining to the period for lodging petitions, as specified in Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention, does not apply in these cases.2 37. In accordance with the foregoing, the requirement pertaining to the period for filing petitions, as specified in Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention, is not applicable to the case in point, since what was submitted to the IACHR for its consideration was an allegation of continued noncompliance with a decision handed down by the Supreme Court of the Republic on February 12, 1992. In this regard, the Commission finds that the petition under consideration was submitted within a reasonable period of time, pursuant to the terms of Article 32 of its Regulations, equivalent in content to Article 38 of the Regulations in force at the time the complaint was lodged. 3. Duplication of procedures and res judicata 38. The Commission understands that the subject of the petition is not pending other international settlement procedures, nor is it a replication of another petition already considered by the Commission or another international organization. Therefore, the requirements established in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention have been met. 4. Description of the facts 39. The Commission considers that the statement by the petitioner refers to facts which, if proven, could represent a violation of the right to judicial protection established in Article 25(2)(c) of the American Convention, and a violation of the obligation to respect the rights referred to in Article 1(1) of said Convention. V. CONCLUSIONS 40. The Commission concludes that it is competent to examine this petition and that it is admissible, pursuant to Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. 41. On the grounds of the above-mentioned arguments based on the facts and the law, and without prejudging the merits of the matter, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 2 IACHR, 1998 Annual Report, Report N° 75/99 – César Cabrejos Bernuy, C