argues that the Supreme Court, through the judgment handed down on May 7, 2003, dismissing the writ of cassation brought against the ruling of the Court of Appeals of La Serena, signaled the exhaustion of the remedies available under Chilean domestic law. For its part, the State has not denied or disputed the argument of the petitioner. Consequently, the Commission considers that the requirement of Article 46(1) of the American Convention is complied with . 2. Timely presentation of the petition 25. Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention provides that a petition must be lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the petitioners are notified of the final judgment exhausting domestic remedies. The petitioner argues that the denial of justice culminated in the judgment of the Supreme Court of May 7, 2003. The petitioner submitted his complaint to the Commission on October 24, 2003. The State has not invoked failure to comply with the six months rule, for which reason it is deemed to have tacitly waived this defense. The Commission concludes that the petition was presented within the time period established in Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention. 3. Duplication of proceedings and international res judicata 26. The Commission understands that the substance of the petition is not pending in any other international proceeding for settlement, nor is it substantially the same as any petition previously studied by the Commission or other international body. Hence, the requirements set forth in Articles 46(1)(c) and Article 47(d) of the Convention have also been met. 4. Characterization of the facts alleged 27. The Commission notes that the petition raises important questions about the scope of civil reparations for the relatives of a victim of grave human rights violations. Consequently, the Commission concludes that in its description of the alleged facts the petitioners’ complaint is neither manifestly groundless nor obviously out of order, and that the requirements of Article 47(b) are thereby complied with. V. CONCLUSION 28. By virtue of the arguments of fact and of law set forth above, the Commission concludes that the case at hand complies with the