38. From the information presented by the parties, the Commission notes that the indictment was answered with a motion for dismissal with a subsidiary appeal, which was allegedly rejected. The alleged victim appears to have been convicted on May 8, 2002. Subsequently, an appeal for review was allegedly denied by the STJ, followed by a complaint of refusal to review, which was allegedly rejected. Lastly, a special federal appeal was allegedly attempted and found inadmissible by the CSJN, on February 13, 2007. 39. As for the duration of preventive detention, a motion for release from preventive imprisonment was allegedly submitted and, on August 1, 2001, the Court of the First Examining Magistrate allegedly extended such imprisonment. On September 11, 2002, the alleged victim was apparently released. 40. According to reports from both parties, the Commission therefore notes that the petitioner appears to have exhausted domestic remedies with the ruling of February 13, 2007, that ruled the special federal appeal inadmissible. Therefore, considering the characteristics of this petition, the Commission finds that it meets the requirement established in Article 46.1.a of the American Convention. 2. Deadline for presentation of the petition 41. Article 46.1.b of the American Convention stipulates that, in order to be admissible by the Commission, a petition must be presented within the six months following the date on which the allegedly injured party has been notified of the final decision. 42. The criminal trial to which this complaint pertains was conducted between 1999 and February 2007 and this petition was received on August 24, 2001, after which the alleged prolonged imprisonment was extended. The Commission has already stated that domestic remedies were exhausted on February 13, 2007. 43. The Commission also reaffirms that what should be taken into account in determining whether domestic remedies have been exhausted is the situation at the time of the ruling on admissibility1, because the time of presentation of the complaint differs from the time of the ruling on admissibility. 44. Therefore, considering the context and characteristics of this petition, the Commission finds that it was submitted within a reasonable period of time and that it meets the admissibility requirement concerning the presentation deadline. 3. Duplication of international proceedings 45. The case file contains nothing to indicate either that this matter is pending consideration under any other international proceeding or that it has already been decided by the Inter-American Commission. Therefore, the IACHR concludes that the exceptions provided in Article 46.1.d and Article 47.d of the American Convention do not apply. 4. Nature of the alleged events 46. Neither the American Convention nor the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR require the petitioner to identify the specific rights that are alleged to have been violated by the State in the matter placed before the Commission, although petitioners may do so. It falls to the Commission, on the basis of the system's jurisprudence, to determine, in its reports on admissibility, which provision of the pertinent interAmerican instruments is applicable; and the violation thereof may be established if the alleged events are demonstrated with sufficient evidence. 1 IACHR. Report No. 52/00 Cases 11.830 and 12.038 Dismissed Congressional Employees. Peru. June 15, 2000, para. 1 and Report No. 94/14, Petition 623-03. Admissibility. Jaime Humberto Uscátegui Ramírez and family members. Colombia. November 6, 2014, para. 39. 5