11 omissions of the State.6 In any case, even if administrative procedures could include other types of reparation than pecuniary reparation, they do not constitute a means to uncover the truth, obtain justice and punish those responsible, which are the quintessential elements of reparation in cases of human rights violations such as those involved in the instant case. 53. The Inter-American Court has noted that: (…) recourse such as the action for direct reparation or the action for annulment and reestablishment of a right have a very limited scope and include some conditions of access that are not appropriate with regard to the reparation objectives established in the American Convention. The Court has indicated that the judgment of a judicial authority in a contentious administrative court rules on the fact that an unlawful damage has been produced, and not on the State’s responsibility 7 for failing to comply with human rights standards and obligations. 54. Based on the foregoing, the Commission reiterates that in cases such as this one, it is not necessary to exhaust actions before the administrative jurisdiction. 55. Lastly, regarding the State’s argument on the failure to file for habeas corpus relief, the Commission recognizes that this remedy may be a mechanism whereby the disappearance of a person is formally brought to the attention of the State so that the necessary immediate measures can be taken to ascertain the whereabouts thereof. Nonetheless, the Commission recalls that the aim of the exhaustion of domestic remedies requirement is to enable the State to have the opportunity to remedy the situation alleged in the complaint. Consequently, in a case such as this one, wherein the family members resorted to different bodies of the State, including the Public Ministry to report the disappearance, and after more than 17 years, the necessary measures have not been taken to determine the whereabouts of the missing persons, the Commission finds that exhaustion of the remedy of habeas corpus cannot be required. C. Timeliness of the Petition 56. Pursuant to Article 46.1.b) of the American Convention, in order for a petition to be admitted by the Commission, it must be lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the alleged victim was notified of the final judgment exhausting domestic remedies. This rule is not applicable, when the Commission finds that any exception to the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies has been met, as provided for in Article 46.2 of the Convention. In such instances, the Commission must determine whether the petition was lodged within a reasonable period of time in accordance with Article 32 of its Rules of Procedure. 57. As was indicated above (see supra pars. 48-51), the Commission concluded that in the instant case the requirements have been met for unwarranted delay, as provided for in Article 46.2.c) of the American Convention. The IACHR finds that submission of the petition in 1999 is reasonable, taking into account that the crimes alleged in the case were under investigation by domestic authorities and the next-of-kin of the alleged victims had the expectation of obtaining a response. The ongoing nature 6 IACHR, Report No. 43/02, Petition 12.009, Admissibility, Leydi Dayán Sánchez, Colombia, October 9, 2002, par. 22; Report No. 74/07, Petition 1136/03, Admissibility, José Antonio Romero Cruz et al, Colombia, October 15, 2007, par. 34. 7 IA Court of HR, Case of the Massacre of la Rochela v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, par 221.