à-vis the substantive rules of the Convention. Therefore, any determination regarding whether exceptions to the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies established in that clause are applicable to the instant case, must be conducted prior to and separate from an analysis of the merits of the case, since it relies on a standard of proof different from that used to determine whether there has been a violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. It should be clarified that the causes and effects which have prevented the exhaustion of domestic remedies in the instant case will be examined, where relevant, in the report adopted by the Commission during the merits stage, so as to verify whether they in fact constitute violations of the American Convention. 3. Time period for lodging a petition 59. According to Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention, in order for a petition to be admitted, it must be 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 under domestic law. This rule does not apply when the Commission finds one of the exceptions to exhaustion of domestic remedies established in Article 46(2) of the Convention to exist. In such cases, the Commission must determine whether the petition was lodged within a reasonable time according to Article 32 of its Rules of Procedure. 60. The Commission observes that the events in the instant case began to unfold on January 6, 2003. There were internal proceedings underway regarding the alleged extrajudicial executions as well as complaints awaiting a decision regarding subsequent acts against some family members. The petition was lodged on March 14, 2007 and the petitioners alleged the existence of unwarranted delay in the domestic proceedings, meaning that over the years they have been expecting to obtain justice and reparations for what occurred. The Commission considers that the time which lapsed between the occurrence of the events and the lodging of the petition constitutes a reasonable time. 4. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 61. Article 46(1)(c) of the Convention establishes that in order to be admissible, the subject of the petition “must not be pending in another international proceeding for settlement,” and Article 47(d) stipulates that it must not be “substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization.” In the instant case, the parties do not allege, nor does it appear in the record, that either of these conditions of inadmissibility is present.14 5. Characterization of the facts alleged 62. For the purposes of admissibility, the Commission must decide whether the petition states facts that tend to establish a violation, as stipulated in Article 47(b) of the Convention, or whether the petition is “manifestly groundless or obviously out of 14 While during the time that this petition was joined with case 12.488 (Eloisa Barrios et al.) the State alleged inadmissibility on the basis of duplication of proceedings, the Commission understands that those allegations referred to a request for revision of the Admissibility Report adopted in said case, and not regarding the admissibility of this petition. The Commission draws this conclusion since the documentation submitted by the State on those inadmissibility proceedings referred exclusively to persons linked to case 12,488, and the State had expressly requested a review of the aforementioned Admissibility Report, without indicating that it also found petition 1491 to be inadmissible. 12