5 the State has a duty to maintain public order, and therefore it has an obligation to set the criminal law system into motion and to process the matter until the end.3 29. In light of the foregoing considerations, the Commission concludes that the petition falls within the exception to the requirement for exhaustion of domestic remedies contemplated in Article 46.2.c of the Convention, because of unwarranted delay in resolving the case. 2. Deadline for presentation 30. Article 46.1.b of the Convention requires that in order for petitions to be admissible they be submitted within six months of notification of the final judgment to the complainant. However, in accordance Article 46.2 of the Convention and Article 32.2 of the IACHR Rules of Procedure, “The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not apply when: the domestic legislation of the State concerned does not afford due process of law …; the party … has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law…; or there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment. […]. This rule shall also not apply when the complaint refers to a continuing situation, when it is alleged that the victim’s rights are violated without interruption.” 31. The Commission concludes that the requirement established in Article 46.1.b does not apply, given the unwarranted delay in investigations to clarify the facts, considering that the judicial investigation began in 1996, that as of the date of this report the complaints filed regarding the death of Vicente Ariel Noguera have not been clarified, and that in 2002, after the petition was filed, the non-definitive archiving of the investigation was ordered. The Commission therefore considers that the petition of October 17, 2000, was presented within a reasonable period, as established in paragraph 2 of Article 32 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. 3. Duplication of proceedings and international res judicata 32. Article 46.1.b of the Convention says that admission of a petition requires “that the subject of the petition or communication 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 if “the petition or communication is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization.” In this case, the parties have not put forward the existence of either of these two grounds for inadmissibility, and there is no indication of them in the proceedings. 4. Nature of the allegations 33. The Inter-American Commission must decide whether the facts described in the petition, if proved, would tend to establish a violation of the rights guaranteed in the American Convention as provided in the requirements of Article 47.b, or whether, according to Article 47.c, the petition should be rejected as “manifestly groundless or obviously out of order.” In this procedural phase it is up to the IACHR to make a prima facie evaluation, not in order to establish alleged violations of that treaty, but to examine whether the petition states facts that tend to establish a violation of the rights guaranteed in the American Convention. This analysis does not imply prejudgment or anticipation of the decision on the merits of the case. 34. With respect to Article 4, the Commission notes that the petitioner’s main allegation is that the death of Vicente Ariel Noguera occurred while he was in the custody of the Paraguayan State and could have resulted from negligence, mistreatment, or torture at the hands of State agents. Concerning the alleged violations of Article 5 of the American Convention, the petitioner has argued that her son’s physical health was excellent when he began compulsory military service, and was impaired by his recruitment. 3 Report Nº 52/97, Case 11.218, Arges Cerqueira Mangas, Annual Report of the IACHR 1997, paras. 96 and 97. See also Report No. 55/97, Juan Carlos Abella, para. 392, and Report 51/07, Marco Javier Zambrano and Javier José Rada vs Ecuador, para. 33.