4 21. The prior exhaustion requirement applies when the national system truly provides available recourse to properly and effectively remedy the alleged violation. In that connection, Article 46(2) stipulates that such requirement shall not apply when the domestic law of the state concerned does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right in question, or if the alleged victim has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law, or if there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. 22. In the instant case, the petitioners indicated that they lodged a habeas corpus petition with Huancayo’s examining magistrate days after Ms. Tenicela Tello’s alleged disappearance but that the judicial authorities did not carry out an effective investigation. In cases of alleged forced disappearance the Commission has determined that a habeas corpus petition satisfies the Admissibility requirement set forth in Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention. 23. The State maintained that the petition is inadmissible because the domestic court has not issued a final ruling in the criminal investigation expanded on July 22, 2003 to include the alleged victim and other 33 persons. It should be noted that the petition filed with the Commission alleges both forced disappearance and denial of justice as violations of rights protected by the American Convention. Therefore, what is at issue before this international body is not only the ineffectiveness of the habeas corpus petition but also the investigation currently underway in the First Criminal Court of Huancayo, for which reason this remedy must be analyzed in the present stage of the complaint. Eight years after the alleged victim was included among the injured parties, the case is still in the investigatory phase, and although it involves a large number of victims and suspects, the Commission has not received specific allegation or concrete information that would justify the delay in rendering a final judgment. 24. In the merits phase, the Commission will determine whether the Peruvian State has provided the family of the alleged victim access to a remedy with due guarantees in accordance with its obligations under Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. However, at the present stage of the proceedings, and without prejudging the merits of the case, the IACHR considers that, in view of the passage of more than 18 years since the alleged disappearance of Cory Clodolia Tenicela Tello without a determination of her fate and whereabouts or a final judgment establishing the truth and punishing the perpetrators, the information in the petition is sufficient to conclude that there has been unwarranted delay under Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention. C. Deadline for presentation of the petition 25. Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention provides that, in order for a petition to be declared admissible, it must have been presented within six months from the date on which the interested party was notified of the final decision that exhausted domestic remedies. This rule does not apply when the Commission finds that any of the exceptions to the exhaustion of domestic remedies enshrined in Article 46(2) of the Convention applies. In such cases, the Commission must determine whether the petition was presented within a reasonable time, in keeping with Article 32 of its Rules of Procedure. 26. As indicated in paragraph 24 above, the Commission has concluded that there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a judgment as provided in Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention. Given the ongoing nature of the Ms. Tenicela Tello’s alleged forced disappearance, the failure to establish her fate and whereabouts, the failure to move beyond the investigatory phase in the criminal proceedings, the absence of determination of responsibilities and the alleged denial of justice, the Commission considers that the petition was presented within a reasonable time. D. Duplication of proceedings and international res judicata 27. Article 46(1)(c) of the Convention provides that the admission of a petition is subject to the requirements that the matter "is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement"; and Article 47(d) of the Convention stipulates that the Commission will not admit a petition that is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization. In this