still in its initial stage approximately eight years later. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the exception of unwarranted delay stipulated in Article 46(2) of the American Convention applies. 2. Deadline for presentation of petitions 48. Pursuant to Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention, in order for a petition to be admitted and considered by the Commission, it must be lodged within a period of six months from the most recent judicial decision. However, Article 46(2) of the American Convention establishes exceptions to the rule of presentation within a period of six months. In this case, the IACHR concludes that the present case is covered by the exception established in Article 46(2)(c), or in other words, there is an “unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies.” 49. By virtue of the provisions of Article 32(2) of the IACHR Rules of Procedure referring to the case of an exception to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the petition must be presented within a reasonable period of time, as determined by the Commission. In accordance with this Article, the Commission will include in this analysis “[consideration of] the date on which the alleged violation of rights occurred and the circumstances of each case.” 50. In the present case, the Commission has concluded that application of the exception to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies is appropriate, due to the unwarranted delay in rendering a judgment. Thus, the IACHR must analyze whether the petition was lodged within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with the specific circumstances of the situation under consideration. 51. The Commission notes that the petition was lodged on August 10, 2000, approximately one year following the events in question, and after various legal actions were pursued by the petitioners with a view to clarifying the matter, 60 all of which proved to be of no assistance in determining the whereabouts of the alleged victim. The IACHR concludes that one year following the alleged disappearance of the presumed victim is a reasonable period of time. 3. Duplication of international proceedings and res judicata 52. Article 46(1)(c) establishes that admission of petitions is subject to the requirement that the subject of the petition “is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement,” and Article 47(d) of the Convention stipulates that the Commission shall consider inadmissible any petition that “is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization.” In the case in point, neither of these two causes of inadmissibility apply to the action by the parties, nor can they be deduced from procedures. 4. Characterization of the alleged facts 53. It is the responsibility of the Inter-American Commission to determine whether the acts described in the petition characterize violations of the rights established in the American Convention, pursuant to the requirements of Article 47(b), or whether the petition, pursuant to Article 47(c), should be denied as “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order.” In this procedural stage, it is the duty of the IACHR to make a prima facie assessment, not for the purpose of establishing alleged violations of the American Convention, but rather to examine 60 See paragraphs 14, 15, and 22 of this report. 12