resolving the matter domestically and open the way for applying the international protection mechanisms established in the American Convention. 10 37. The State also alleges that the ruling of September 26, 2000, by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice would make it possible to reopen proceedings in this case, but the Salvadoran authorities have taken no action to that end. The Commission notes that in cases such as this one, involving offenses subject to public prosecution, that is to say, that may be prosecuted ex officio, the State has the legal obligation--which it may not delegate or waive--to investigate. To the Salvadoran State, in fact, belong the power to prosecute and the obligation to guarantee the right to justice of the victims and their families. This burden must be borne by the State as its own legal duty, not as an instrument of the interests of private individuals, and may not be contingent on the initiative of those individuals or on the evidence they may provide.11 38. Based on the above, the Commission decides to apply to this case the exception established in the second part of Article 46.2.b of the American Convention. Consequently, the requirements prescribed for exhaustion of internal remedies in the Convention do not apply. 2. Filing deadline 39. Under Article 32 of the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR, when exceptions apply to the requirement on exhaustion of internal remedies, the petition must be filed within a reasonable time frame, in the judgment of the Commission, bearing in mind the date of the alleged violation and the circumstances in each case. Considering the date of the alleged events, the impossibility of exhausting remedies during the armed conflict, and the subsequent government actions and omissions, the Commission believes that this petition was filed within a reasonable time. 3. Duplication of proceedings and international res iudicata 40. The Commission finds that, in substance, the petition is not pending in another international settlement procedure and does not substantially duplicate a previous petition examined by the Commission or other international organizations. Accordingly, the requirements of Articles 46.1.c and 47.d of the Convention have been met. 4. Characterization of the events alleged 41. Article 47.b of the Convention provides that the Commission will declare inadmissible any petition or communication that "does not state facts that tend to establish a violation of the rights guaranteed by this Convention." The Commission finds that the events alleged by the petitioners in section III of this report may be characterized at first sight as violations of Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 19, 21 and 25 of the American Convention in relation to the obligations established in Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof. Consequently, the IACHR concludes in this connection that the case is admissible under Article 47.b. V. CONCLUSION 42. The Commission concludes that the case is admissible and that the Commission has jurisdiction to hear the petitioners' claim concerning the alleged violation of Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 19, 21 and 25 of the American Convention in relation to the obligations established in Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof. 43. By virtue of the above facts and law and without prejudging the merits of the matter, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 10 11 IACHR, Report N° 37/00 (Merits), Msgr. Oscar Arnulfo Romero y Galdámez (El Salvador), April 13, 2000, para. 25. IACHR, Report N° 25/98, Cases 11505, 11532, 11541, 11546, 11549, 11569, 11572, 11573, 11583, 11585, 11595, 11652, 11657, 11675 and 11705 (Chile) in the 1998 Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. 7