pursue this remedy. Even so, that action is exclusively for obtaining compensation for damages caused by the individual delict or negligent act. Therefore, it is not necessary for this type of remedy to be exhausted in relation to the claim alleging responsibility of the State in the death of Carlos Arturo Uva. 35. Therefore, given the characteristics of the claim that is the subject matter of this case, the Commission considers that the petitioner’s claim satisfies the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies set out at Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention. 2. Deadline for submission 36. The American Convention establishes that in order for a petition to be admissible by the Commission, it must be presented within six months from the date the alleged victim has been notified of the final decision. Article 32 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure establishes that in those cases in which exceptions to the prior exhaustion rule apply, the petition should be submitted within a time which, in the view of the Commission, is reasonable. To that end, the Commission should consider the date of the alleged violation of rights and the circumstances of each case. 37. The Commission observes that the petition was received on October 5, 2000, and the resolution denying the appeal in the contentious-administrative jurisdiction was handed down by the Council of State on March 30, 2000, and notified by edict to the parties on April 6, 2000, thus the requirement stipulated in Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention was satisfied. 3. Duplication of procedures and international res judicata 38. It does not appear from the record that the subject matter of the petition is pending before any other international procedure for settlement, or that it reproduces a petition already examined by this or another international organization. Therefore, one must consider the requirements established in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention to be satisfied. 4. Characterization of the facts alleged 39. The petitioners allege that the authorities did not investigate or establish to what extent the State may have incurred responsibility for the conduct of its agents and for not having duly responded to the death of Carlos Arturo Uva Velandia. On its part, the State alleges that the petitioner’s claim is aimed at obtaining additional compensation from the State and in doing so is pretending that the Commission acts as a fourth instance. In this regard, the allegation of the petitioners with respect to the possible State responsibility for the conduct of its agents, does not constitute and activity outside the competence of the Commission and that could establish violations of the rights of life, personal liberty, judicial guarantees, and judicial protection, protected at Articles 4(1) and 7, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the American Convention.. 40. The Commission will also consider, in the merits stage, the alleged violation of Articles 5, 8(1), and 25 of the American Convention to the detriment of the next-of-kin of the alleged victim and considers that the alleged failure to clarify the responsibility of the State for the conduct of one of its agents in a military area requires an analysis of the merits in light of the standards of the American Convention. 41. As for the petitioner’s claim regarding the alleged violation of Articles 6 and 11 of the American Convention and Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, the Commission observes that the petitioners did not offer arguments or support for their alleged violation, accordingly those claims are not found to be admissible. V. CONCLUSIONS 42. The Commission concludes that it is competent to examine the claims presented by the petitioners regarding the alleged violation of Articles 4(1), 5, 7, 8, and 25 in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the American Convention and that these are admissible, in keeping with the requirements established at 7