he stabilized before being returned to Ecuador, where he reports spending additional time in rehabilitation for permanent physical disabilities. The State does not indicate that it ever had any contact with Mr. Roche Azaña regarding the pending trial before he was sent back to Ecuador after his condition stabilized. 54. The State contends that had Mr. Roche Azaña left a mailing address the court would have provided notification of the final judgment to the alleged victim. The court documents, however, provide evidence that this is not necessarily correct. For example, the August 28, 1996 decision of the Appeals Tribunal for the Western Region certifies that copies of the decision were to be delivered to two private complainants, Norma Doza Samaniego and Maribel Quispe PomaHuanare who were both injured in the incident. The court records, however, demonstrate that copies of the court of appeals decision were not mailed to either private complainant but rather left at the court house to be picked up by the private complainants. By the time the decision was published, however, both women had already been returned to their home country of Peru. All the court records provided to the Commission demonstrate that the same method of “notice” was provided to the two private complainants throughout the trial proceedings. A copy of decisions were also copied into the tribunal’s book of judgments, however, the State provides no information that this record was disseminated publicly. 55. While the Commission recognizes that a State should not be held responsible for failing to provide notice of a judicial decision if a complainant refuses or declines to engage in established procedures to be provided timely notice; however, under the specific circumstances of this case the Commission is compelled to accept that the alleged victims’ six-month clock to file a petition with the Commission started in August 1998, when Mr. Roche Azaña first received actual notice. In particular, the Commission finds the State’s failure to advise Mr. Roche Azaña of his rights to intervene as a private complainant in the trial proceedings and the evidence that the intervening private complainants never received the decision by mail in their home countries as evidence that the State’s system to provide notice did not function properly in this specific case. 56. Therefore, in light of the specific circumstances of this case, the Commission finds the petition satisfies the six month filing deadline established in Article 46.1.b of the American Convention. 3. Duplication of proceedings 57. The petitioners have expressed and the record suggests that the subject of this petitions is neither pending in another international 12