34. Finally, the Commission again observes that the exceptions to the rule requiring exhaustion of domestic remedies are closely linked to the determination of possible violations of certain Convention-protected rights, such as the right to due process (Article 8) and the right to judicial protection (Article 25). However, Article 46(2) of the Convention, by its nature and purpose, has a content that is independent of and separate from the substantive norms of the Convention and hinges on a standard of assessment that is different from the one used to determine whether there has been a violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. The decision as to whether the exceptions to the requirement for exhaustion of domestic remedies, stipulated in Article 46(2), apply to the case in question must therefore be made prior to and independently of the analysis of the merits, as the Commission is doing by issuing this report. Therefore, the reasons why the remedies under domestic law were not exhausted and the legal effect of the failure to exhaust those domestic remedies will be examined when the Commission studies the merits of the case in order to determine whether Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention were violated.10 C. Deadline for submitting the petition 35. Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention provides that in order for a petition to be admissible it must be submitted within a period of six months from date on which the interested party was notified of the final decision that exhausted the domestic jurisdiction. However, Article 32(2) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure establishes that in cases in which the exceptions to the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies apply, 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.11 36. In the instant case, the petition was originally filed on March 31, 2007, after the decision not to renew RCTV’s concession was made public. On August 18, 2007, the petitioners reported, inter alia, on the execution of the administrative decision not to renew RCTV’s concession and the filing of the remedy seeking nullification. On October 16, 2007, the Commission decided not to proceed with the processing of the petition. On February 28, 2010, the petitioners filed a submission updating the content of their petition. The Commission considers that the petition was filed within a reasonable period of time, in keeping with Article 32(2) of its Rules of Procedure. As explained above, this does not constitute a prejudgment regarding the possible violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, which the Commission will examine during the merits phase of these proceedings. D. Duplication of proceedings and international res judicata 37. Nothing in the case file suggests that the subject matter of the petition is pending in another international proceeding for settlement or that it is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international human rights body. The requirements established in Articles 46.1.c and 47.d of the Convention have therefore been satisfied. E. Characterization of the facts alleged 38. For purposes of admissibility, the Commission must decide whether the alleged facts tend to establish a violation of rights protected under the American Convention, as stipulated in Article 47(b) of the American Convention, or whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order,” as provided in Article 47(c). At this stage of the proceedings, the Commission is called upon to do a prima facie analysis, not in order to determine whether violations have been committed but to examine the petition to determine whether it states facts that could constitute violations of rights protected under the American Convention. This 10 See IACHR, Report No. 54/01, Case 12.250, Mapiripán Massacre, Colombia, Admissibility, February 22, 2001, paragraph 38; Report No. 65/01, Case 11.073, Juan Humberto Sánchez, Honduras, Merits, March 6, 2001, paragraph 51; Report No. 15/02, Petition 11.802, Ramón Hernández Berrios et al,. Honduras, Admissibility, February 27, 2002, paragraph 110. 11 IACHR, Report No. 31/99, Case 11.763, Plan de Sánchez Massacre, Guatemala, Admissibility, March 11, 1999, paragraphs 29 and 30. 8