30. With respect to the exhaustion of remedies and the length of imprisonment, the Commission notes that Honduran legislation, as the government indicates, does not permit a person to be released from prison if he is being processed for crimes such as those of which Mr. López is charged. Therefore, consistent with Article 46(1)(a), the petitioners are exempt from exhausting the remedies of internal jurisdiction. b. Time limit for submission 31. Article 46(1)(b) establishes that one of the requirements of admissibility for a petition is that it must be "lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the party alleging violation of his rights was notified of the final judgment". 32. Article 46(2) of the American Convention establishes that the provision of Article 46(1()(b) will not apply when: a) the domestic legislation of the State concerned does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right or rights that have allegedly been violated; b) the party alleging violation of his rights has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law or has been prevented from exhausting them; or c) there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. 33. In the case in question, fulfillment of the requisite established in Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention is related to the application of the exceptions to domestic remedy exhaustion established in the Convention, as discussed in the previous paragraphs. 34. Therefore, the Commission finds that the petition is not subject to the requirement of Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention, and that it has been presented within a reasonable time limit. c. Duplication of proceedings and judgments 35. Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention establish as requirements of admissibility that the subject of the petition or communication is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement and that it is not substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization. 36. The file does not suggest that the petition is pending settlement in another international proceeding, or that it is substantially the same as one previously examined by the Commission or by another international organization. 37. The Commission therefore includes that the requirements established in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention have been met. d. Characterization of the alleged acts 38. Article 47(b) of the Convention establishes that any petition will be inadmissible if it “does not state facts that tend to establish a violation of the rights guaranteed by this Convention”. 39. The Commission considers that the Petitioner's allegations, if proven, could characterize a violation of the rights guaranteed in Articles 7, 8, 25 and 24 of the Convention, taken in concordance with Article 1(1) of that international instrument. 40. The Commission therefore considers that the requirements of Article 47(b) and (c) of the American Convention are satisfied. V. CONCLUSIONS 41. The Commission concludes that it has competence to hear the complaint submitted by the Petitioner, and that the petition is admissible in accordance with Articles 46 and 47 of the Convention. 6