depends on a standard of evaluation different from that used to determine the possible violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. It should be made clear that the causes and effects that impede the exhaustion of domestic remedies will be analyzed in the report that the Commission adopts regarding the merits of the dispute, in order to establish whether there are violations of the American Convention. 2. Deadline for submitting the petition 44. The American Convention establishes that in order for a petition to be considered admissible by the Commission, it must be lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the party alleging violation of his rights was notified of the final judgment. Article 32 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedures establishes that in those cases in which the exceptions to the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies are applicable, the petition must be presented within a reasonable period of time, as determined by the Commission. For this purpose, the Commission will consider the date on which the alleged violation of rights occurred and the circumstances of each case. 45. In the instant case, the petition was received on February 23, 2006 and statute of limitations operated on September 20, 2005. Therefore, in view of the context and the characteristics of this case, the Commission considers that the petition was presented within a reasonable period of time and that the admissibility requirement referring to the deadline for presentation should be regarded as having been met. 3. Duplication and res adjudicata 46. The case file does not indicate that the subject of the petition is pending in another international proceeding for settlement, nor that it reproduces a petition already examined by this or any other international body. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider the requirements established in Articles 46.1.c and 47.d of the Convention as having been met. 4. Characterization of the alleged facts 47. Given the de facto and de jure arguments submitted by the parties and the nature of the subject submitted for its consideration, the Commission finds that in the instant case it is appropriate to establish that the allegations of the petitioner regarding the alleged violation of judicial guarantees and judicial protection could characterize violations of the rights protected under Articles 8.1 and 25.1 consistent with Article 1.1 of the American Convention. V. 48. the 1.1 the CONCLUSIONS The Commission concludes that it is competent to examine the complaints submitted by petitioner regarding the alleged violation of Articles 8.1, and 25.1 consistent with Article of the American Convention and that these complaints are admissible, in accordance with requirements established in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. 49. Based on the de facto and de jure arguments presented above and without prejudging the merits of the case, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, DECIDES: 1. To declare this case admissible with respect to Articles 8.1, and 25.1 of the American Convention as they relate to Article 1.1. 2. To notify the Ecuadoran State and the petitioner of this decision. 9