ACONERUQ, against the Union and the state of Maranhão. It asks the court to declare the communities of “Só Assim” and “Itamatatiua” to be remaining quilombo communities, and to exclude them from the area in which the CLA facilities are located. The co-defendants named in the suit were the “Palmares Cultural Foundation” and the INCRA – “Instituto Nacional de Colonização e Reforma Agrária”. The Commission notes that this action concerns specific communities and its conclusion will not change the situation of all quilombo communities in the region; furthermore, this action could not reverse the state’s declaration of public use or interest, as such a declaration is a discretionary power of the State, as previously explained. 57. On the other hand, an unwarranted delay could be established in the instant case, since the lower court decisions on these legal actions are still pending, even though the cases were brought in 1999 and 2003. 58. Analyzing the information submitted by the petitioners and the State, it is determined that none of the individualized actions have provided an effective result that would tend to put an end and repair the denounced violations. As the remedies that the internal legislation proportionate, until this date have provided no solutions or effectiveness, it is allowed to the IACHR to consider that the exception to the exhaustion of domestic remedies applies to the instant case. 59. The IACHR observes that invocation of the exceptions to the rule requiring exhaustion of domestic remedies, provided for in Article 46.2 of the Convention, is closely linked to the determination of possible violations of certain Convention-protected rights, such as the guarantees of access to justice. However, given its nature and purpose, Article 46.2 stands separate and apart from the Convention’s substantive provisions. Therefore, the determination as to whether the exceptions to the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies apply to the case in point, must be done prior to and separate from the analysis of the merits. The determination of whether the exceptions apply relies on a standard of assessment that is different from the standard used to determine possible violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. It is worth noting that the causes and effects that prevented exhaustion of domestic remedies in the present case will be examined in the report that the Commission adopts on the merits of the case, to determine whether violations of the American Convention have occurred. 60. For all the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that there is sufficient cause under Article 46.2 of the American Convention to exempt the petitioners from the rule requiring prior exhaustion of domestic remedies. B. Time period for lodging a petition 61. Article 32 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure provides that in cases in which the exceptions to the rule requiring exhaustion of domestic remedies apply, the petition must be lodged within a reasonable period of time. In the instant case, the exceptions allowed under Article 31.2 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure have already been examined under the section on exhaustion of local remedies. 62. Having examined the date on which the alleged facts occurred,[22] 22 having considered that this case may involve a continuing violation of human rights, and given the status of the various legal cases pending in the Brazilian courts, the 22 State Decree N° 7.820, September 12, 1980, which declared the area as a public utility space for means of expropriation; the reestablishment of 312 families between years 1982 and 1985; the chronogram of the program of the CLA to reestablish more than 400 families’ stages (not accomplished yet). 11