53. The IACHR has ruled on the applicability of exceptions to the exhaustion of domestic remedies rule under Article 46.2.b of the American Convention. In this regard, Article 32 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure states that in cases in which the exceptions to the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies are applicable, petitions must be presented within what the Commission considers a reasonable period of time. 54. In that regard, bearing in mind that the criminal proceeding conducted by the military tribunal did not constitute a suitable remedy and that the petition was lodged on August 2, 2001, that is, seven months after the final judgment issued by that organ was made public on January 19, 2001, the Commission believes that the petition under review was lodged within a reasonable time. 3. Duplication of international proceedings and res judicata 55. Article 46.1.c stipulates that the admissibility of a petition is dependent on the matter not being “pending in another international proceeding for settlement”; likewise, Article 47.d of the Convention provides that the Commission shall admit no petition that “is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization.” Nothing in the case file indicates that the subject matter of the petition is pending in another international settlement proceeding or that it is substantially the same as one previously examined by this Commission or by another international body. Consequently, the requirements set out in those articles have been met. 4. Characterization of the alleged facts 56. The Commission notes that under the agreement signed on September 17, 2002 by the State and the father of Mirey Trueba, the latter received a sum of money in compensation. In keeping with the consistent and firmly established jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights with respect to the nature and the scope of the obligation to offer reparations, 21 it is necessary to consider not only pecuniary damages arising from the violation, but to weigh as a whole all those injuries of multiple characteristics which, consequently, should be repaired by means of different measures specific to the nature and extent of the injury.22 The Court also considers that it is necessary to add any positive measures the State must adopt to ensure that the harmful acts, 21 Cfr. I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, paras. 25-26. 22 Cfr. I/A Court H.R., Loayza Tamayo Case. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 3 (Concurring Opinion of Judge A.A Cançado Trindade) 14