Commission concludes that the petition under study was lodged within a reasonable period of time. 63. The initial human rights violations being alleged were said to have occurred with Decree No. 7,820 of September 12, 1980, which declared the tract of land planned for the CLA to be of public use or interest for expropriation purposes. The violations alleged to have occurred thereafter happened over the course of time, as certain families were moved to the “agrovilas,” and many families have had to live under the threat of expropriation. 64. The IACHR considers when the violations in a particular case are continuing in nature, there is no single date from which to calculate what a reasonable period of time might be. The expropriations occurred at different times and the threat of expropriation may qualify as a continuing violation. Hence, the Commission concludes that the present petition was filed within a reasonable period, since the initial alleged violations are still ongoing as of the date of preparation of this report. C. Duplication of international proceedings and res iudicata 65. Nothing in the file of this petition or in any information the Commission received, suggests that the subject matter of the petition is pending decision in another international proceeding for settlement or that it replicates a petition or communication it previously examined. The Commission therefore concludes that the requirements established in Articles 46.1.c and 47.d of the Convention have been met. D. Characterization of the facts alleged 66. The Commission considers that prima facie the facts alleged tend to establish a violation of Article 1.1, in connection with Article 17, in the case of the relocated families and those families living under the threat of relocation; Articles 16, as regards respect for the individuality of the communities existing within the Alcântara region; Article 21 in the case of the expropriation of the lands of the remaining quilombo communities, by virtue of Transitory Article 68 of the 1988 Federal Constitution of Brazil; Article 22, in that the right of the relocated communities to move about freely in the “agrovilas” in order to fish and plant crops may have been violated, and also because of the allegedly tiny properties offered to the quilombo communities. As for possible violations of Articles 8 and 25, the alleged victims would be all those who may have suffered because of the conditions to which they were exposed when their land was declared for public use or interest, with the expropriation that followed in the case of some families. Being afro descendents communities involved, which allege an inadequate protection of their rights, the IACHR considers motu proprio that the facts could characterize a violation of Article 24, in connection with 1.1. 67. The Commission also decides to admit the petition with regard to possible violations of Article 2 of the American Convention since, as previously noted, the Commission, when examining the domestic remedies, determined that Brazilian law may not offer effective due process to challenge the declaration of public use or interest in an expropriation. 68. The petition should also be declared admissible based on Articles VI, VIII, XII, XIII, XIV, XVIII, XXII and XXIII of the American Declaration for the occurrences prior to September 25, 1992. V. CONCLUSION 12