Article 46(2), given its nature and purpose, is a provision with autonomous content vis-à-vis the substantive provisions of the Convention. Therefore, the determination as to whether the exceptions to the prior exhaustion rule apply to the case in question must be made prior to and separate from the analysis of the merits, since it depends on a different standard of appreciation from that used to determine the possible violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. It should be clarified that the causes and effects that impeded the exhaustion of domestic remedies will be analyzed in the report the Commission adopts on the merits, so as to determine whether there are violations of the American Convention. 2. Time for submitting the petition 40. The American Convention establishes that in order for a petition to be found admissible by the Commission it must be submitted within six months of the date on which the alleged injured party has been given notice of the final decision. In the petition under analysis, the IACHR has established that the exceptions to the exhaustion of domestic remedies apply, as per Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention. In this respect, Article 32 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure establishes that in those cases in which the exceptions to the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies apply, the petition must be submitted within a reasonable time, to be judged by the Commission. To that end, the Commission must consider the date of the alleged violation of rights and the circumstances of each case. 41. In the instant case, the petition was received on February 8, 2005, and its effects in terms of the alleged continuity of the failure to recognize the alleged victim’s rights extend to the present day. Therefore, in view of the context and the characteristics of the instant case, the Commission considers that the petition was presented within a reasonable time, and that the admissibility requirement regarding the time for submission should be considered satisfied. 3. Duplication and res judicata 42. Article 46(1)(c) of the Convention requires, for a petition to be admitted by the Commission, “that the subject of the petition or communication is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement”; and Article 47(d) of the Convention provides that the Commission shall declare inadmissible any petition or communication when “the petition or communication is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization.” It does not appear from the record that the subject matter of the petition is pending another procedure for international settlement, or that it reproduces a petition already examined by this or any other international organ. Therefore, the requirements established at Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention have been satisfied. 4. Characterization of the facts alleged 43. In view of the elements of fact and law presented by the parties and the nature of the matter put before it, the IACHR considers that the petitioners’ allegations tend to establish possible violations of the rights judicial guarantees, and judicial protection, protected at Articles 8(1), and 25, in conjunction with Article 1(1), all of the American Convention. 44. Neither the American Convention nor the IACHR Rules of Procedure require a petitioner to identify the specific rights allegedly violated by the State in the matter brought before the Commission, although petitioners may do so. It is for the Commission, based on the system's jurisprudence, to determine in its admissibility report which provisions of the relevant InterAmerican instruments are applicable and could be found to have been violated if the alleged facts are proven by sufficient elements. The Commission observes that as for the petitioners’ claim on alleged de jure discrimination with respect to same-sex couples in relation to Article 24 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in conjunction with Article 1(1) and 2 of the same treaty, the arguments put forth require an analysis on the merits in light of the standards of the American Convention. 45. The Inter-American Commission considers the allegations made with respect to Article 5 of the American Convention to be secondary in nature and to be contingent on the conclusion 8