Convention. Based on the foregoing, the Commission considers that there exist sufficient grounds to exonerate the petitioner from the obligation of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies as described in Article 46(2) of the American Convention. D. Deadline for presentation of petitions 43. In accordance with Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention, for a petition to be admissible it must be lodged within six months from the date on which the party alleging violation of his rights was notified of the final judgment in the domestic jurisdiction. The six months rule ensures legal certainty and stability once a judgment has been reached. 44. Article 32 of the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR states that in those cases in which the exception to the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies is applicable, the petition must be lodged within a reasonable period, as determined by the Commission. In accordance with this article, the Commission “shall consider the date on which the alleged violation of rights occurred and the circumstances of each case.” 45. In the petition under consideration, the IACHR has concluded that the State of Venezuela tacitly renounced its right to raise an objection of the non-exhaustion of remedies available under domestic law. Furthermore, the IACHR has concluded that in this case, Article 46.2.c concerning the existence of an unwarranted delay is applicable given that more than three years have elapsed since the events took place, and the investigation is still at the preliminary stage. The Commission therefore must determine whether or not the petition was lodged within a reasonable period based on the specific circumstances described for its consideration. 46. In this regard, the IACHR observes that the original petition was received on March 20, 2006. The incidents that are the subject of the petition began in August 2003. The IACHR considers that the petition was lodged within a reasonable period. E. Duplication of procedures and res judicata 47. The allegations of the petitioners do not suggest that the petition is pending in another international proceeding for settlement, or that it is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization. Therefore, the Commission considers that the requirements for admissibility enshrined in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention have been met in this case. F. Description of the alleged facts 48. In order to determine admissibility, the IACHR must establish if the facts described in the petition tend to establish a violation of the rights guaranteed in the American Convention, in accordance with the requirements of Article 47(b), or if the petition, in accordance with Article 47.c should be considered inadmissible because it is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order.” 49. The petitioners have made allegations that if substantiated could tend to establish violations of Article 4 (Right to Life), Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), Article 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), Article 13 (Freedom of Thought and Expression), and Article 25 (Right to Judicial Protection), all in relation to the general obligation enshrined in Article 1(1) of the Convention, and are not “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order.” Furthermore, in accordance with the general principle of iura novit curia, this gives the power to apply all pertinent legal provisions, even when these have not been invoked by the parties, the IACHR considers that the facts alleged by the petitioners could constitute violations 13 of Article 19 (Rights of the Child) of the American Convention to the detriment of Luís Cesar Castillo Moreno and article 16 13 IACHR, Report No. 38/96, Case 10.506, Argentina, October 15, 1996. 8