35. It need only be noted, in addition, that invoking the exceptions to the prior exhaustion rule, provided for at Article 46(2) of the Convention, is closely linked to the determination of possible violations of certain rights set forth in the Convention, such as the guarantees of access to justice. Nonetheless, Article 46(2), by its nature and purpose, is a rule whose content is autonomous from the substantive provisions of the Convention. Accordingly, the determination as to whether the exceptions to the prior exhaustion rule set forth as subsection (a), (b), and (c) of that provision apply to the case in question must be made prior to and apart from the analysis of the merits, for it depends on a different standard of appreciation from that used to determine whether there has been a violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. It should be clarified that the causes and the effects that impeded the exhaustion of domestic remedies will be analyzed, as pertinent, in the Report adopted by the Commission on the merits of the case, so as to determine whether they constitute violations of the American Convention. 2. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 36. It does not appear from the record that the subject matter of the petition is pending before another international procedure, or that it reproduces a petition already examined by this or any other international body. Accordingly, the requirements established in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention are deemed to have been satisfied. 3. Characterization of the facts alleged 37. The Commission considers that the petitioners’ allegations regarding the alleged violation of the rights to life, humane treatment, personal liberty, and judicial protection owed the victims and their next-of-kin, if true, tend to establish a violation of the rights guaranteed at Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, and 25, in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention. With respect to the alleged violation of Article 13 of the American Convention, the Commission finds that it has not been specifically supported by the petitioners. V. CONCLUSIONS 38. The Commission concludes that the case is admissible, and that it is competent to examine the petitioners’ claim of alleged violations of Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, and 25, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the Convention, in keeping with the requirements established in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. 39. Based on the arguments of law and fact set forth above, and without prejudging on the merits, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, DECIDES: 1. To declare the instant case admissible, in relation to Articles 1(1), 4, 5, 7, 8, and 25 of the American Convention. 2. To give notice of this decision to the State and the petitioner. 3. To initiate the processing of this case on the merits. 4. To publish this decision and include it in its Annual Report, to be submitted to the General Assembly of the OAS. Done and signed at the headquarters of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, in the city of Washington, D.C., February 20, 2003. (Signed): Juan Méndez, President; Marta Altolaguirre, First Vice-President; José Zalaquett, Second Vice-President; Commissioners: Robert K. Goldman, Clare Kamau Roberts, Julio Prado Vallejo, and Susana Villarán. 7