compelled to demonstrate the effectiveness of the remedies that, in its view, have not been exhausted. In its arguments, the State has not provided evidence to demonstrate that affirmation. Indeed, the remedies mentioned by the State have to do with powers of the Executive, i.e. both arrangements for the acquisition of the area claimed by the community and the possibility of filing a new bill for expropriation in the National Congress. The two remedies mentioned by the State have already been pursued unsuccessfully in the domestic proceeding and the State has not indicated that they might be effective. 37. As for the alleged non-exhaustion of the mechanism established in ILO Convention 169, in accordance with the Paraguayan law on the Statute of Indigenous Communities, under which the consent of the indigenous community will have to be sought for a possible transfer to lands other than those claimed, the Commission finds that this is not a domestic remedy and that consequently it need not be exhausted by the petitioners. 38. Given the characteristics of the case, the Commission therefore considers that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and that there has been unwarranted delay in reaching a final judgment as to these remedies; accordingly, the petitioners are exempt from the rule requiring exhaustion of domestic remedies, as provided for in Article 46(2)(c). 2. Time period for presenting a petition 39. Under Article 46(1)(b), the Convention requires that a petition be lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the party alleging violation of its rights was notified of the final judgment. Article 32 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission states that “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”. 40. In the present case, the Commission concluded supra on the applicability of the exception to the requirement concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies. In this respect, the Commission considers that the petition presented to the IACHR by the petitioners on May 15, 2001 was lodged within a reasonable period of time, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that on November 16, 2000, the Senate rejected the request for expropriation. 3. Duplication of Proceedings 41. Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention stipulate as admissibility requirements that the subject matter of the petition or communication must not be pending in another international proceeding for settlement and not be substantially the same as another previously studied by the Commission or by some other international organization. 42. The Commission’s inquiry has not revealed that the petition is pending in another international proceeding for settlement or that the petition is substantially the same as another previously studied by the Commission or by some other international organization. 43. The Commission therefore concludes that the requirements contained in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention have been fulfilled. 4. Characterization of the facts alleged 44. Article 47(b) of the Convention provides that the Commission shall consider inadmissible any petition that “does not state facts that tend to establish a violation of the rights the Convention guarantees”. 6