19. In light of the foregoing and of the findings in the case file, the Inter-American Commission establishes -for the purposes of admissibility- that there has been an unwarranted delay on the part of the Mexican jurisdictional authorities in reaching a decision on the allegations. Consequently, the IACHR waives the exhaustion of domestic remedies, as provided in Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention. 20. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has established that invoking exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies envisaged in Article 46(2) is closely linked to the determination of possible violations of certain rights laid down in the American Convention, such as the right to due process and judicial protection established in Articles 8 and 25. 11 21. However, the content of Article 46(2), by its nature and purpose, is independent of the substantive provisions of the American Convention. Therefore, any determination regarding the applicability of exceptions to the rule on exhausting domestic remedies to the case under reference should be carried out prior to and separate from the review of the merits of the case, since the parameters for judgment are different from those used to determine whether Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention have been violated. The causes and effects that prevented exhaustion of domestic remedies in Mexico in the present case will be analyzed in the report adopted by the IACHR on the merits of the dispute, in order to determine whether violations of the American Convention actually occurred. b. Deadline for Presentation 22. In accordance with Article 46(2) of the American Convention, the unwarranted delay in reaching a decision through domestic remedies results in the inapplicability of the requirements of exhaustion and filing within six months from the date of notification of the final decision. Article 32(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR determine in that regard: In those cases in which the exceptions to the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies are applicable, the petition shall be presented within a reasonable period of time, as determined by the Commission. For this purpose, the Commission shall consider the date on which the alleged violation of rights occurred and the circumstances of each case. 23. The petition under review was lodged on May 10, 2000, within six months of the final judgment sentencing Mr. García Cruz and Mr. Sánchez Silvestre to three years in prison for carrying firearms. However, we know that the men were not released after having served their sentences because another action was in progress based on the same statement obtained in June 1997 while they were held incommunicado at the PGJDF with no legal counsel. The findings in the case show that from the date of the alleged torture to the date of filing of the complaint with the IACHR, the petitioners took a number of steps to move the investigation forward. Up until the date of adoption of this report, there is no indication that the inquiry into the allegations of torture within the domestic jurisdiction has been completed. 24. In the opinion of the IACHR, based on the facts described above, the petition was presented within a reasonable time frame. c. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 25. The case in the petition has no information whatsoever that might lead one to believe that this matter is pending resolution in another international forum or has been previously decided by the Inter-American Commission. The IACHR therefore concludes that the exceptions provided in Article (1) (d) and Article 47(d) of the American Convention do not apply. d. Description of the allegations facts 26. The petitioners allege the illegal detention and torture of Mr. Juan García Cruz and Mr. Santiago Sánchez Silvestre, as well as the failure to investigate and punish those responsible 11Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Preliminary Exceptions, Judgment of June 26, 1987, Series C No. 1, para 91.See also, see Inter-American Court of Human Rights, “Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency” (Arts. 27.2, 25, and 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights)”, Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987, Series A No. 9, para. 24. 5