5 reached are permanently archived.” On July 2, 1995 the Democratic Constituent Congress adopted Law No. 26492, specifying that the amnesty law was not subject to judicial review, so that its issuance was exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Legislative Branch. According to information known to the public, 4 following the judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Barrios Altos case, the Judicial Branch declared Amnesty Laws Nos. 26479 and 26492 to be without effect. This made it possible to prosecute and punish crimes committed by state agents in the context of the domestic armed conflict, but only starting in late 2001. 27. The information in the case file indicates that the investigation into the disappearance of Mrs. Díaz Aparicio was initiated in March 2003, but on February 13, 2009 a provisional archive resolution was adopted and the Police Division of the Public Prosecutor’s Office was ordered to adopt new measures. That information indicates that more than 19 years after the alleged forced disappearance and more than eight years after the criminal investigations were opened, those investigations are still in the preliminary stage. 28. In the merits stage the Commission will examine whether the State provided a remedy with due guarantees to the relatives of the alleged victim vis-à-vis the obligations set forth in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. However, at the present stage of the proceedings, and without prejudging the merits of the matter, the IACHR finds that the passage of over 19 years since the alleged forced disappearance of Teresa Díaz Aparicio without the determination of her whereabouts, and without a final decision establishing what occurred and punishing all those responsible, is sufficient to conclude that an unwarranted delay has occurred, under the terms of Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention. C. Deadline for presentation of the petition 29. 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. 30. As indicated in paragraph 28 above, the Commission concluded that there has been an unwarranted delay in reaching a decision in the instant case, in accordance with Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention. Given that the petition was submitted nine days after the alleged forced disappearance of Mrs. Teresa Díaz Aparicio, as well as the ongoing nature of that crime and the alleged denial of justice to the detriment of the relatives of the alleged victim, the IACHR deems that the requirements provided in Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention and Article 32 of its Regulations have been met. D. Duplication of proceedings and international res judicata 31. 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 case, the parties have not cited the existence of either of those two circumstances, nor are they inferred from the case file. E. Characterization of the facts alleged 32. For purposes of admissibility, the Commission must decide whether the petition describes events that could constitute a violation, as stipulated in Article 47(b) of the American 4 I/A Court H.R., Barrios Altos v. Peru Case. Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits. (Art. 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of September 3, 2001. Series C, No. 83.