unwarranted delay in the administration of justice and a lack of due legal process to punish the perpetrators of the alleged violations. 35. The State, for its part, has specifically argued noncompliance with the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies on the grounds that the case is active in the national courts. However, the petitioner contends that the judicial investigation meant to clarify the facts and prosecute and punish the responsible parties was initiated in 1983, and has now lasted 22 years without resulting in even a lower court ruling, not to mention a final judgment. Thus, the criminal proceedings have been extended over an unreasonable period of time, and access to a prompt, effective remedy has been denied. 36. The Commission considers the arguments put forward by the petitioner to be convincing, and concludes that application of the exceptions stipulated in Article 46(2) of the American Convention and Article 31(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission is appropriate. In fact, on the date this report was prepared, namely twenty-two years after the forced disappearance of Renato Ticona Estrada, the State had not completed the criminal proceedings required to resolve the case in domestic courts of law. These proceedings began with the preliminary hearing on June 4, 1983, and were closed in 1986 without concluding the preliminary stage of investigation and evidence taking. The petitioner indicated that the proceedings reopened in 2005 were also beset with difficulties, and that the State has not yet punished the perpetrators of the alleged acts or found the mortal remains of Renato Ticona.10 37. The IACHR points out that application of the exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies described in Article 46(2) of the Convention is closely linked to determination of possible violations of certain rights established therein, such as guarantees of access to justice. However, Article 46(2) of the American Convention, by its nature and purpose, is a rule whose content is independent of the substantive provisions of the Convention. Therefore, a determination as to whether the exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies stipulated in that Article are applicable to the case in point should be made prior to and independently of an examination of the merits of the case, since it relies on a different standard of evaluation than the one used to determine whether or not there was a violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. It should be noted that the causes and effects that prevented exhaustion of domestic remedies in this case will be analyzed, insofar as relevant, in the report adopted by the Commission on the merits of the case, with a view to determining whether they in fact represented violations of the American Convention. On the basis of the foregoing arguments, the Commission is of the opinion that there are sufficient elements of proof to exempt the petitioner from the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies, pursuant to Article 46(2) of the American Convention. 2. Deadline for presentation of petitions to the IACHR 38. Article 32 of the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR states that in 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. The petitioners considered that because of the irregularities in the criminal proceedings and the situation of impunity in the case, the period of six months stipulated in the Convention does not apply. 39. In this case, the exceptions listed in Article 46(2) have already been examined by the IACHR in analyzing the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies stipulated in Article 46(1)(a), ut supra paragraph 34. By virtue of the circumstances analyzed, the Commission does not need to examine once again whether this exception would apply. In addition, taking into account the date of the alleged acts, the possibility of a situation of continued violation of human rights, and the status of the various domestic remedies used in Bolivia, the Commission considers that the petition under examination was submitted within a reasonable period of time. 10 IACHR, Report 14/04 Admissibility, Peru, Case 11,568, Luis Antonio Galindo Cárdenas, February 27, 2004, par. 39 and 40. IACHR, Report 52/97, Admissibility, Nicaragua, Case 11.218 Arges Sequeira Mangas, Feburary 18, 1998, par. 96 7