41. It only remains to indicate that invoking exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies, provided for at Article 46(2) of the Convention, is closely associated with the determination of possible violations of certain rights set forth therein, such as the guarantees of access to justice. Nonetheless, Article 46(2), given its nature and purpose, is a norm with autonomous content vis-à-vis the substantive provisions of the Convention. Therefore, the determination as to whether the exceptions to the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies provided for therein apply to the case in question should be made prior to and separate from the analysis of the merits, as it depends on a different standard of appreciation from that used to determine whether there have been violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. It should be clarified that the causes and effects that have impeded the exhaustion of domestic remedies in the instant case will be analyzed, as pertinent, in the Report the Commission adopts on the merits, so as to determine whether in effect there are violations of the American Convention. 2. Deadline for lodging a petition 42. The American Convention provides that for a petition to be admissible by the Commission, it must be submitted within six months from the date on which the person whose rights have allegedly been violated has been notified of the final decision. In the claim under analysis, the IACHR has determined that the exceptions to the exhaustion of domestic remedies apply as per Article 46(2)(c) and (b) of the American Convention. In that respect, Article 32 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure establishes that in those cases in which the exceptions to the prior exhaustion rule apply, the petition must be lodged within a time which, in the Commission’s view, is reasonable. To that end, the Commission should consider the date on which the violation of rights is alleged to have taken place and the circumstances of each case. 43. Considering the specific circumstances of the facts alleged in the petition, the lack of effectiveness of domestic remedies, the extreme poverty and disabilities of the alleged victims, the shortcomings of the administrative and judicial system in the State of Honduras, the actions of the alleged victims and their next-of-kin to seek justice, the situation and context in which the violations have allegedly occurred, and the fact that several judicial investigations and proceedings are still pending, the Commission considers that the petition was lodged within a reasonable time, and that the admissibility requirement on deadline for lodging a petition should be considered satisfied. 3. Duplication of procedures and international res judicata 44. It does not appear from the record that the subject matter of the petition is pending before any other international procedure, or that it reproduces a petition already examined by this or any other international organization. Accordingly, the requirements established in articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention should deemed to have been satisfied. 4. Characterization of the facts alleged 45. As the Commission has already stated in other cases, this stage of the procedure is not for determining whether there has been a violation of the American Convention. For the purposes of admissibility, the IACHR must simply decide whether the arguments state facts that could tend to establish a violation of the American Convention, in keeping with Article 47(b), and whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order,” under Article 47(c). The standard of appreciation of these rules is different from that required to decide on the merits of the claim. In the present stage, the IACHR must make