46(2)(b) and 46(2)(a) of the American Convention.18 For the reasons indicated, the Commission rejects the exception claimed by the State. 43. The State alleged further that the petitioner should have filed an application for a writ of protection (amparo) against the decision of the Senior Prosecutor approving his recourse to the Law on Repentance. However, the State has not proven that such remedy was effective for the case in question.19 The Commission observes that the file does not state that the petitioner has been notified of the decision to approve his recourse to the Law on Repentance. On the contrary, it states in the records that the complainant had made two requests to the Prosecutor's Office for copies of the proceedings against him, and an allegation not contradicted by the State that these were not provided. The State further alleged that the petitioner should have brought an action for extra-contractual liability against the alleged authors of the violations that are the subject of the complaint. However, since the criminal action is the ideal means of clarifying the facts, prosecuting those responsible and providing for the appropriate criminal punishment, in addition to providing for other means of monetary compensation, the doctrine of the Commission holds that the petitioner was not required to exhaust this remedy.20 The Commission therefore rejects the State's argument about the failure to exhaust the remedies under domestic law. 44. In light of all of the above and of all the statements contained in the file on this matter, the Inter-American Commission determines, for the purposes of admissibility, that the exceptions to the requirement of prior exhaustion of the remedies available under domestic law provided for in Article 46(2)(a) and (b) of the American Convention are applicable to the present case. 45. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has established that exceptions to the rule requiring that remedies under domestic law provided for in Article 46(2) is closely linked to the determination of certain rights enshrined in the American Convention, such as the right right to judicial protection enshrined in Articles 8 and 25.21 the invocation of the should be exhausted possible violations of to a fair trial and the 46. However, by its nature and purpose, the content of Article 46(2) stands autonomously in relation to the substantive norms of the American Convention. Consequently, the determination of the applicability of the exceptions to the rule requiring the exhaustion of domestic remedies to the present case should be made beforehand and separately from the consideration of the substance of the case, since it is subject to different criteria of evaluation from that used to determine whether Articles 8 and 25 of the abovementioned international instrument have been violated. The causes and effects that have prevented the exhaustion of the remedies under domestic law in Peru with respect to the present case will be examined in the report to be adopted by IACHR on the substance of the dispute, with a view to determining whether they indeed constituted violations of the American Convention. 2. Deadline for the presentation of petitions 47. In accordance with Article 46(2) of the American Convention, the absence from the domestic laws of due legal process for the protection of the rights alleged to have been violated results in the inapplicability of the requirements for the exhaustion of the remedies under domestic law and for the filing of the complaint within the period of six months from the 18 See for example IACHR, Report No. 42/99, Case 11.045, Hugo Muñoz Sánchez, Bertila Lozano Torres, Dora Oyague Fierro, Luis Enrique Ortiz Perea, Armando Richard Amaro Condor, Robert Edgar Teodoro Espinoza, Heráclides Pablo Meza, Felipe Flores Chipana, Marcelino Rosales Cárdenas and Juan Gabriel Mariños Figueroa (La Cantuta) v. Peru, March 11, 1999, paras. 42-43. 19 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. Preliminary Objections. Cit., paras. 62-63. 20 IACHR, Zulema Tarazona Arriate, Norma Teresa Pérez Chávez and Luis Alberto Bejarano Laura v. Peru, cit., paras. 25-31. 21 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Preliminary Exceptions, cit., para. 91. See in this connection also Judicial Guarantees during States of Emergency ( Articles 27.2, 25 and 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC–9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A. Nº 9, para 24. 8