for launching and pursuing an investigation into events of this nature corresponds exclusively to the State, whose investigatory agencies should operate in a professional and diligent manner. 46.Taking the aforementioned into account, the Commission considers that there has been an unwarranted delay in the criminal investigation and therefore that the petitioners are exonerated from the requirement to exhaust remedies available under domestic law by virtue of Article 46(2) of the American Convention. 47.The Commission reaffirms that invoking exceptions to the rule of prior exhaustion of remedies available under domestic law set out in Article 46(2) of the Convention is closely linked with the determination of possible violations of rights protected there, such as judicial guarantees. However, Article 46(2) of the American Convention, in its nature and object, is autonomous in content, vis á vis the Convention’s substantive norms. Therefore, a decision on whether the exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of remedies available under domestic law enshrined in Article 46(2) can be applied to the case in question must be established prior to, and separate from, an examination of the merits of the case because it relies on a different standard of judgment than the one that determines a violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. It should be pointed out that the causes and effects that have prevented the exhaustion of remedies available under domestic law in the present case will be examined, as far as they are relevant, in the Report adopted by the Commission on the merits of the case, in order to establish it deals with real violations of the American Convention. Based on the foregoing, the Commission considers that there exist sufficient grounds to exonerate the petitioner from the obligation of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies as described in Article 46(2) of the American Convention. 3. Deadline for presentation of petitions 48.Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention sets out that for a petition to be declared admissible, it must be presented within a period of six months from the date on which the interested party was notified of the final judgment in the domestic jurisdiction. This rule is not applied when the Commission finds that another of the exceptions to the exhaustion of remedies available under domestic law set out in Article 46(2) of the Convention is applicable. In these cases, the Commission must decide whether the petition was lodged within a reasonable time in accordance with Article 32 of its Rules of Procedure. 49.The Commission observes that following the date of the death of Eduardo José Landaeta Mejías on December 29, 1996, an investigation was launched in the domestic jurisdiction, and that this investigation, along with any resulting trial, was essential for the expectations of family members that justice would be done and redress made for what had happened. The Commission also concluded supra paragraph 47 that there has been an unwarranted delay in the investigation of this case, in which the members of the family of Eduardo José Landaeta have participated fully and constantly. Therefore, the situation of impunity surrounding the events and the lack of an effective judicial response by the State (if lack of diligence on its part is proven) would persist to this day, to the detriment of Ignacio Landaeta Muñoz and María Mejías. The Commission considers that the above elements are sufficient to conclude that the petition was lodged within a reasonable period. 4. Duplication of procedures and res judicata 50.Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention states that the admissibility of a petition shall be subject to the requirement that the subject “is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement,” and Article 47(d) of the Convention establishes that the Commission shall consider inadmissible any petition “that is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization.” In this case, the parties have not alleged either of these two circumstances that would give rise to inadmissibility; nor do they occur in the proceedings. 5. Description of the alleged facts 7