6, 2001. Likewise, following the decisions on their appeals, the alleged victims’ petitions to the JCPC for special leave to appeal were dismissed on April 28, 1999 and February 14, 2005. 35. With respect to constitutional motions, the legal system in Trinidad & Tobago offers the possibility of filing constitutional motions to challenge certain issues raised in the present matter, such as the applicability of commutation of the sentence. However, the petitioners argue that the alleged victims are indigent and that they do not have access to legal aid to bring a constitutional motion in respect of the issues raised in the petition and therefore are being denied access to a legal remedy. Moreover, they underscore that the constitutional motion joined by the alleged victims, which culminated in the commutation of their death sentence in August 2008, did not encompass the subject matter of the petition, e.g., the alleged fabrication of evidence against them, their wrongful conviction through a miscarriage of justice, the due process violations, inhuman conditions of their detention and the prohibition imposed on Mr. Dial regarding contact with his minor child, among others. 16 They maintain that the scope of constitutional motions is limited to the constitutional validity of the State’s attempt to execute the alleged victims. 36. The IACHR has consistently found, and the Inter-American Court has confirmed that the legal complexity of a constitutional motion, combined with an alleged victim’s indigence, makes it unrealistic and unfair to expect him or her to present such a motion without professional legal assistance, thus rendering this recourse illusory.17 Indeed, though technically still an available option, such a motion bears a sufficient level of complexity that it requires legal assistance which was supposedly not provided by Trinidad & Tobago to the alleged victims. In these circumstances, the IACHR considers that the applicants cannot be required to file a constitutional motion as a condition of admissibility. 37. Therefore, the Inter-American Commission decides that domestic remedies were duly exhausted by means of the post-conviction appeals presented before the Court of Appeal, which were dismissed on October 16, 1997 and subsequently on July 6, 2001 (supra paras. 12 and 14, respectively); followed by the petitions for special leave to appeal presented before the JCPC, which were dismissed on April 28, 1999 and subsequently on February 14, 2005 (supra paras. 12 and 14, respectively). In conclusion, the IACHR finds that this petition is not barred from consideration under Article 46.1.a of the American Convention or Article 31.1 of the Inter-American Commission’s Rules of Procedure. C. Timeliness of the petition 38. Article 46.1.b of the American Convention and Article 32.1 of the IACHR’s Rules of Procedure require that for a petition or communication to be admitted, it must be lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the party alleging a rights violation was notified of the final judgment. The petition was lodged on April 29, 1999, prior to the exhaustion at issue, that is to say, prior to the decisions regarding the second post-conviction appeal and the second petition of special leave to appeal. In this regard, the IACHR understands that the admissibility requirements must be met at the time of approval of the admissibility report. Consequently, it concludes that the requirements of Articles 46.1.b of the American Convention and 32.1 of the Rules of Procedure have been fulfilled. D. Duplication of proceedings and international res judicata 39. Nothing in the present file indicates that the subject of this petition is pending in any other international proceeding for settlement, or that it is substantially the same as another petition previously studied by the Inter-American Commission or by any other international 16 See mutatis mutandi IACHR. Report N. 137/09, Admissibility, Reshi Bisoon and Foster Serrete, Trinidad and Tobago, November 13, 2009, para. 41. 17 See, inter alia, IACHR Report No.21/05, Petition 12.269, Dexter Lendore (Trinidad & Tobago) February 25, 2005, para. 21; IACHR Report No.66/05, Petition 12.260, Franklyn Villaroel, (Trinidad & Tobago) October 13, 2005, para. 22; and IACHR Report N° 43/98, Case 11.816, Haniff Hilaire (Trinidad and Tobago), Annual Report 1998, para. 17. See also I/A Court H.R., Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago Case. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para.152.b. 7