stage. The causes that prevented the opportune exhaustion of domestic remedies, as well as any possible consequences, will be examined in the extent in which they are relevant when the Commission examines the merits of the case. 2. Deadline for the presentation of the petition 34. Article 46.1.b of the Convention establishes that every petition shall 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 at the national level. However, according to Article 46(2) of the Convention and 32(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR, “this rule shall not be applicable when the domestic legislation of the state concerned does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right or rights that have allegedly been violated; the party alleging violation of his rights has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law or has been prevented from exhausting them; or there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final 5 judgment under the aforementioned remedies […]". Such Article states that in these cases, the petition shall be presented “within a reasonable period of time as determined by the Commission. For this purpose, the Commission shall consider the date on which the alleged violation of rights occurred and the circumstances of each case.” 35. In this case, it should be taken into account that the petition was lodged on September 1 st, 2010, some days after the sentence pronounced by the Childhood and Adolescence Courts of Appeals on August 18, 2010, which annulled the sentence that ordered the return of the child in favor of the biological father and visiting rights in favor of the biological mother, taking the process back to its initial stage. The Commission has concluded that due to the prolonged duration of the ordinary proceedings, it is appropriate to exempt this petition from the requirement of prior exhaustion of additional extraordinary remedies. In light of the circumstances, and even considering the fact that such process is still under way, the Commission considers that the petition was lodged within a reasonable period and that the requirements set forth in Article 46.1.b have been observed. 3. Duplication of procedures and res judicata 36. Article 46.1.b of the American Convention provides that the admissibility of a petition must meet the requirement that the subject of the petition “is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement”; and Article 47.d of the Convention stipulates that the Commission shall consider inadmissible any petition or communication “that is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization.” In this case, the parties have not alleged any of such circumstances that would give rise to inadmissibility, nor can they be inferred from the case file. 4. Characterization of the alleged facts 37. Article 47.b of the American states that petitions that do not state facts that tend to establish a violation of rights guaranteed by the Convention shall be considered inadmissible. 38. Neither the American Convention nor the IACHR Rules of Procedure require a petitioner to identify the specific rights allegedly violated by the State in the matter brought before the Commission, although petitioners may do so. It is for the Commission, based on the system's jurisprudence, to determine in its admissibility report which provisions of the relevant Inter-American instruments are applicable and could be found to have been violated if the alleged facts are proven by sufficient elements. 39. In this case, it is not for the Commission at this stage of the proceedings to decide whether or not the alleged violations of the American Convention actually took place. The IACHR has carried out a prima facie evaluation and decided that the petition describes complaints that, if proved, could be described as possible violations of the rights protected under the Convention. 5 See IACHR, Report N.° 72/03 (Admissibility), Petition 12.159, Gabriel Egisto Santillán, paragraph 60; Report N.º 33/99 (Admissibility), Case 11.763, Masacre de Plan de Sánchez, Guatemala, April 16, 1999, paragraph 29 and 30. IACHR, Report 69/05, Case 960-03, Admissibility, Argentina, October 13, 2005, paragraph 43. 6