furnished by the State does not allow it to establish that the duration of the investigations for more than ten years following the incidents in question was the result of such complexity. It also notes that the State provided no information on the procedural status of those investigations, the stages still pending, or the specific formalities already carried out, and that neither did it indicate which of the alleged facts they specifically deal with. The Commission believes that the circumstances described imply, prima facie, an unwarranted delay for the purposes of admissibility, and so the IACHR believes that the exception provided for in Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention is applicable to the instant case. 47. Regarding the amparo remedy referred to by the petitioners, the IACHR notes that under the terms of Ecuador’s Constitutional Control Law, that remedy may be filed by the injured party, by his or her representative, or by an “ex officio agent who provides grounds for the injured party’s inability to do so,” subject to the requirement of ratifying that decision within the space of three days. The law also provides for the possibility, solely in cases of environmental protection, for the remedy to be lodged by any individual or corporate body.11 In turn, the State did not dispute this argument or provide information on any domestic remedies and mechanisms covering the particular status of indigenous peoples in isolation that would serve to ensure the effective protection of the collective rights of the alleged victims vis-à-vis infringements of their basic rights. 48. In consideration whereof, the IACHR finds that the petitioners did repeatedly request that the State adopt measures to protect the Tagaeri and Taromenani peoples in isolation and their ancestral territory through the available resources but that, for the purposes of admissibility, they were not afforded appropriate and effective mechanisms for demanding that the State provide the requested protection. Consequently, given the considerations set out above and the characteristics already described, the Commission concludes that the requirement in question can be waived in the instant case. 49. Finally, the triggering of the exceptions to the domestic remedy exhaustion rule provided for in Article 46(2) of the Convention is closely related to the finding of possible violations to certain rights provided for therein, such as guarantees of access to justice. However, Article 46(2), by nature and purpose, is a norm with autonomous content vis-à-vis the substantive norms of the Convention. Consequently, whether or not the Convention’s exceptions to the rule requiring the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies are applicable in the case at hand must be decided prior to and in isolation from the analysis of the merits of the case, and that is because it depends on a standard of appreciation that is different from the one used to determine whether or not Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention have been violated. It should be noted that the causes and effects that have prevented the exhaustion of domestic remedies in the case at hand will be analyzed, as relevant, in the Commission’s report on the merits of the controversy, in determining whether or not the American Convention was in fact violated. 2. Filing period 50. Under Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention, for a petition to be admissible, it must be lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the allegedly injured party was notified of the judgment whereby the domestic remedies were exhausted. Article 32 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure provides 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.” 51. In the case at hand, the Commission has already ruled (supra) on the waiving of the domestic remedy exhaustion requirement. Since the petition was received on May 4, 2006, alleging incidents taking place 11 Article 48 of the Constitutional Control Law. “Amparo remedies may be filed by offended parties, either acting on their own behalf, by means of an intermediary or attorney, or by an ex officio agent who provides grounds for the injured party’s inability to do so and subsequently ratifies that decision within the space of three days, by the People’s Defender and his deputies and commissioners in the cases provided for in the Constitution and by law, or by any individual or corporate body in cases involving environmental protection.” Law No. 000, RO/99, July 2, 1997. 10