complaining party was notified of the final judgment at the domestic level. The six-month rule ensures legal certainty and stability once a decision has been taken. 61. However, in those cases in which an exception to the prior exhaustion applies, Article 46(2) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure provides that petitions must be presented within a reasonable period of time as determined by the Commission. 62. In this case, the Petitioners’ petition was lodged on February 16, 2007. It concerns alleged violations of property and other rights of the alleged victims, which have been ongoing for many years. The allegations of the Petitioners refer to continuing circumstances and events, such as the alleged lack of legal recognition of the property rights of the Lower Marowijne Peoples, the establishment of, and impact of nature reserves in the traditional territory of the alleged victims, the impact of bauxite mining operations, and the issue of individual land titles granted to non-indigenous peoples over lands within the traditional territory of the Lower Marowijne Peoples. 63. As the Commission has previously observed, where alleged violations in a particular case are continuing in nature, there is no single date from which to calculate a reasonable period of time. Given that the alleged violations are ongoing, the Commission considers that the present petition has been lodged within a reasonable time as stipulated by Article 32(1) of its Rules of Procedure. 3. Characterization 64. The standard of evaluation regarding the admissibility of a petition is different from that which applies in deciding on the merits of a complaint. The Commission must conduct a prima facie assessment to determine whether the complaint entails an apparent or potential violation of a right protected by the Convention and is not at this stage establishing the existence of such a violation. This examination is a summary analysis that neither prejudges nor offers an opinion on the merits. 65. The Petitioners allege that the State violated the rights of the Lower Marowijne Peoples enshrined in Articles 3, 21, and 25 of the American Convention, together with the obligations imposed on the State by Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. The Petitioners have alleged that the indigenous property rights of the Lower Marowijne Peoples are neither recognized nor respected in the laws of Suriname, and that Suriname's legal framework: a) vests ownership of all untitled lands and all natural resources in the State; b) fails to provide adequate and effective judicial or other remedies to protect the indigenous property rights of the Lower Marowijne Peoples; c) fails to recognize the juridical personality of the alleged victims for the purpose of holding title or for exercising or seeking protection for their communal rights. 66. Against this background, the Petitioners contend that the State has: a) issued approximately 20 land titles between 1976 and 2006 to non-indigenous persons over lands in four of the villages of the Lower Marowijne Peoples (Erowarte, Tapuku, Pierrekondre, and Wan Shi Sha); b) granted concessions for, and authorized bauxite mining operations in the territory of the Lower Marowijne Peoples; c) established three nature reserves (in 1966, 1969, and 1986) within the territory of the Lower Marowijne Peoples, without the knowledge or consent of the alleged victims; the Petitioners contend the laws that govern the reserves do not recognize the indigenous rights of the Lower Marowijne Peoples, and expressly prohibit subsistence activities like hunting and fishing. 13