…It is a different matter, however, when it is shown that remedies are denied for trivial reasons or without an examination of the merits, or if there is proof of the existence of a practice or policy ordered or tolerated y the government, the effect of which is to impede certain persons from invoking internal remedies that would normally be available to others. In such cases, resort to those remedies becomes a senseless formality. The exceptions of Article 46(2) would be fully applicable in those situations and would discharge the obligation to exhaust internal remedies since they cannot fulfill their objective in that case.10 Moreover, in regard to the Petitioner’s property confiscated upon his detention, the State does not indicate what procedures should have been followed to secure its return. Instead, the State maintains that after his release, the Petitioner never made a claim for his property. However, the Criminal Court of Guayaquil in its decision of 23 September 1998 found that, “The case of Daniel Tibi having been dismissed, his property, as figuring in the Guayas AntiNarcotics Investigation Report and to be confirmed by the Sixth Superior Court of Guayaquil, shall be returned to him.”11 The Commission notes that as of the date of writing (5 October 2000), the matter has not been resolved. Twenty-fours months having passed since the Superior Court decision, the Commission concludes that this is a case of unjustified delay. Thus, in regard to the right to property as recognized in Article 21 of the American Convention, the Commission considers that domestic remedies have been exhausted. b. Period for lodging a petition 26. Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention stipulates that a petition must be lodged within six months of the date on which the party alleging violation was notified of the final judgment exhausting domestic remedies. In this case the Petitioner lodged his communication with the Commission 5 months and 3 weeks after he was released upon the execution of the 14 January 1998 Superior Court order confirming dismissal. Given that the petition was lodged within six months of the petitioner first having the opportunity to do so, the Commission considers that it was presented within a reasonable time period in accordance with Article 46(1)(b). c. Duplication of proceeding and subject 27. The Commission understands that the subject of the petition is not pending in any other international proceeding for settlement, and that the petition is not substantially the same as any already examined by this or another international organization. Thus the requirements laid out in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) have been met. d. Characteristics of the alleged facts 28. The Commission finds that in principle the facts presented by the Petitioner, if proven true, could constitute a violation of rights protected by the American Convention. Thus the requirements of Article 47(b) of the Convention have been satisfied. V. CONCLUSION 29. Based on the findings of fact and law herein explained, the Commission concludes that the present case satisfies the requirements for admissibility contained in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. 30. Given the above conclusion, THE INTER-AMERICAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, DECIDES TO: 10 11 Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Velásquez Rodríguez case, 29 July 1988, paragraphs 67-68. Decision of the Superior Court of Guayaquil, 23 September 1998. 6