35. The Commission observes that while more than five years have passed since the three women leaders were taken into custody, and more than three years since the death of Mrs. Yarce, justice has still not been done. It also notes that the failure to clarify the facts alleged in the petition left the surviving social leaders unprotected, and provisional measures had to be ordered on their behalf to protect them from the harassment they endured. 36. In its case law, the inter-American system for the protection of human rights has established that an effective investigation is fundamental to and a precondition for protecting certain rights when violated, such as the right to personal liberty, the right to humane treatment and the right to life. This maxim applies regardless of the agent ultimately held accountable for the violation, even private persons; if the authorities fail to investigate the facts, they somehow become accessories to them, thus engaging the international responsibility of the State.24 An effective search for the truth must be assumed by the State as its own legal duty, not as a step taken by private interests that depends upon the initiative of the victim or his family or upon their offer of proof. 25 37. Given the characteristics of the case and the time that has passed since the facts that prompted the complaint occurred, the Commission considers that the exception provided for in Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention applies, which is the exception allowed in the case of an unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment. The rule requiring exhaustion of domestic remedies does not, therefore, apply. 38. Finally, the Commission observes that the exceptions to the rule requiring exhaustion of domestic remedies, provided for in Article 46(2) of the Convention, are closely linked to the determination of possible violations of certain Convention-protected rights, such as judicial guarantees and judicial protection. Therefore, the assessment as to the applicability of these exceptions must take into account each one’s nature and purpose. The Commission will examine the factors that prevented the internal remedies from being exhausted when the time comes to issue its report on the merits, so as to determine whether rights recognized in the American Convention have been violated. 2. Deadline for lodging a petition 39. The American Convention provides that in order for the Commission to be able to admit a petition, the latter must be lodged within six months of the date on which the alleged aggrieved party was notified of the final decision in his case. The IACHR has established that the Article 46(2)(c) exception to the rule requiring exhaustion of domestic remedies applies in the instant case. Article 32 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure provides that in those cases in which the exceptions to the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies are applicable, the petition is to be presented within a reasonable period of time, as determined by the Commission. For this purpose, the Commission will consider the date on which the alleged violation of rights occurred and the circumstances of each case. 40. The petition in the instant case was lodged on March 7, 2005, and the facts alleged were said to have occurred starting in May 2002. After assessing and considering the context, the characteristics of the present case and the fact that the investigations are still pending, the Commission finds that the petition was lodged within a reasonable period of time and that the admissibility requirement involving the filing deadline has been met. 3. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 24 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140,para. 145; Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, paragraphs 137 and 232; Case of Huilca Tecse. Judgment of March 3, 2005. Series C No. 121, para. 66; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute.” Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 158; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 129, and Case of the 19 Merchants. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 153. 25 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Ituango Massacre. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 296;Case of Baldeón García. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 93; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre.Judgment of January 31, 2006, Series C No. 140, para. 144; and Case of the “Mapiripan Massacre”. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 219. 7