legalization of the lands of the Emberá of Bayano, there has not been an effective legal remedy available to the petitioners. 50. Therefore, given the complexity of the matter, the Commission finds that the exception to the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies provided in Article 46(2)(a) and (b) of the Convention applies in this case. This finding is based on the fact that, according to the events complained of, the domestic legislation of Panama does not afford due process of law for the protection of the rights of the alleged victims; the alleged victims have been denied access to the remedies under domestic law, and there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a judgment under the remedies invoked by the Kuna of Madungandí and Emberá of Bayano indigenous peoples. 51. All that remains is to mention that invocation of the exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies provided in Article 46(2) of the Convention is closely linked to the determination of possible violations of certain rights set forth therein, such as guarantees of access to justice. However, Article 46(2), by its nature and purpose, is a provision with autonomous meaning vis á vis the substantive provisions contained in the Convention. Therefore, to determine whether or not the exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies provided in said provision are applicable to a particular case, requires an examination carried out in advance of and separate from the analysis of the merits of the case, since it depends on a different standard of appreciation to that used to establish whether or not there has been a violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. It should be clarified that the causes and effects that have prevented exhaustion of domestic remedies in the instant case will be examined, where pertinent, in the report that the IACHR adopts on the merits of the dispute, in order to determine if they do indeed constitute violations of the American Convention. 2. Timeliness of the petition 52. Pursuant to Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention for a petition to be admissible it must be lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the party alleging violation of their rights was notified of the judgment that exhausts domestic remedies. Article 32 of the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR provides, “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.” 53. In the instant case, the Commission expressed its view supra regarding the applicability of the exception to the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies. Bearing in mind that the alleged victims first initiated actions with the Panamanian State in 1976, the evolution and continuity of the alleged violations, and the date on which the petition was lodged with the IACHR, the Commission finds that the petition was presented within a reasonable time. Therefore, the requirement with respect to the presentation deadline has been met in accordance with Article 32 of its Rules of Procedure. 3. International duplication of procedures and res judicata 54. Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention establish as admissibility requirements that the subject matter of the petition or communication is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement and that it is not substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization. 55. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the subject matter of the petition is pending in another international proceeding or that it is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization. 10