when certain exceptions to the rule of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies are invoked, such as the ineffectiveness of such remedies or the lack of due process of law, not only is it contended that the victim is under no obligation to pursue such remedies, but, indirectly, the State in question is also charged with a new violation of the obligations assumed under the Convention. Thus, the question of domestic remedies is closely tied to the merits of the case. 9 20. Therefore, the decision on the application of the objections set forth in Article 46(2) must be deferred to the merits stage, in which the Commission will determine whether the investigation of the facts and the trial of the persons responsible undertaken by the State's organs meets the standards set forth in the American Convention. 21. The Commission considers that compliance with the requirement of submitting a petition within six months of notification of the final decision in the domestic courts is related to the availability of adequate and effective remedies to prosecute the persons responsible for the disappearance of the alleged victims. Therefore, the Commission must also defer determination as to whether the time period established in Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention applies in this case. In any event, it should be noted that the State has not called into question the timeliness of the petition's submission. b. Duplication of procedures 22. It does not appear from the record of the case 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 organ. Therefore, the Commission considers that the requirements set forth in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention have been met. c. Characterization of the facts alleged 23. The Commission considers that the arguments of the petitioners relating to the alleged violation of the rights to life, physical integrity and liberty as well as the delay in the investigation and the failure to effectively prosecute and sanction the responsible, could constitute a colorable claim of violation of the rights protected in Articles 4, 5, 7 and 8 in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the American Convention. As the claims stated in the complaint are not manifestly groundless or out of order, the Commission considers the requirements established in Articles 47(b) and (c) to have been met. V. CONCLUSIONS 24. The Commission considers that it has jurisdiction to examine the claim submitted by the petitioners and that the case is, in principle, admissible, pursuant to the requirements established at Articles 46(1)(c) and 47 of the American Convention. 25. Based on the arguments of fact and law set forth above, and without prejudging on the merits, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, DECIDES: 1. To declare this case admissible. 2. To report this decision to the Colombian State and to the petitioner. 3. To continue to analyze the merits. 4. To place itself at the disposal of the parties in order to reach a friendly settlement based on respect for the rights protected in the American Convention and to invite the parties to set forth their views on such a possibility; and, 9 I/A Court HR, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987, para. 91. 5