at that time.” The State indicated that in another admissibility report, “the Commission itself had noted that, in order to determine the time frame for presenting the petition in [IVF] cases, the date on which the person was declared infertile must be taken into account.” It added that the alleged victim “was diagnosed with infertility in 2002, and the IVF technique was suggested in 2004, which results in the paradox that when she was presented before this Court as a presumed victim, she had not even thought of IVF as an applicable technique.” Consequently, when they were included as petitioners in these proceedings “the six-month term had already expired; hence their petition should be considered timebarred.” 30. The Commission indicated that “the vast majority of the arguments submitted by the State […] were not presented before the Commission” and they “differ substantially from the arguments submitted by the State at the admissibility stage,” which is precisely the stage at which the Commission “decides on this requirement [of six months] in light of the information provided by the parties.” It indicated that “the fact that the petitioner omits a specific requirement when presenting the initial complaint, and that this requirement is subsequently rectified, does not mean that the presentation of the complaint is timebarred.” 31. Representative Molina Acevedo indicated that “whether or not a couple were aware of their infertility when the judgment of the Constitutional Court was issued does not close the door for any person, to date, to be limited by the six months established in the American Convention.” Nevertheless, he argued that, in this case, “what determines the condition to be an alleged victim is not whether these persons were being treated by certain doctors in 2001, but whether they were aware of their possible and later confirmed infertility” and that, in addition, the only way they could procreate was through IVF. Lastly, the representative indicated that “hostility existed regarding the condition of those who might be on the confidential list of presumed victims in this case.” Considerations of the Court 32. Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention indicates the following: Admission by the Commission of a petition or communication lodged in accordance with Articles 44 or 45 shall be subject to the following requirements: […] b. that the petition or communication is lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the party alleging violation of his rights was notified of the final judgment; (underlining and bold type added) 33. In the instant case, the initial petition was filed on January 19, 2001. At that time the then legal representative of the victims had not made a specific and individual determination of the presumed victims. The inclusion of Ms. Espinoza and Mr. Jiménez occurred in a brief presented on October 10, 2003. In the proceedings before the Court it was reported that Ms. Espinoza found out about her infertility in July 2002. 40 34. On January 16, 2004, the State submitted a brief asking the Commission to declare the inadmissibility of the petition with regarding to Ms. Espinoza due to the “time-barred” nature of her claim, “because it was filed more than six months after the presumed victim of the violated rights had been notified of the decision” of the Constitutional Chamber. 41 40 Epicrisis (medical diagnosis) of Karen Espinoza Vindas (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief of Boris Molina, annex XIV, folio 5477). 41 Brief No. 03-AM-03 of January 16, 2004.