42. In effect, it appears from the record that in 1991, the procedures provided for in the domestic legislation for claiming the Community’s traditional habitat were initiated before the respective administrative body, i.e. the INDI and the IBR, without, to date, any definitive solution to the petition. In addition, an effort was made to resolve the matter in the Senate, which also went nowhere. This is because the expropriation bills were voted down in the Senate, the only report having been November 16, 2000. In view of the foregoing, 11 years after the pertinent steps were taken by the Sawhoyamaxa indigenous community, it has not secured any decision to have its lands turned over to it. 43. In its arguments on admissibility, the State indicated that the petitioners had not exhausted these two domestic remedies, and that the petition is therefore not admissible. The Commission observes in this respect that when a state argues failure to exhaust domestic remedies, it has the obligation to show the effectiveness of the remedies which, in its view, have not been exhausted. In its arguments, the State has not provided information to make such a showing. In effect, the remedies mentioned by the State have to do with powers of the Executive, whether to submit a new expropriation bill to the National Congress, or to make a new offer to buy the area claimed by the Indigenous Community to the owner. Both remedies cited by the State have already been used in the domestic proceeding with no results, and the State has not shown any prospects for effectiveness. 44. With respect to the alleged failure to exhaust the mechanism established in ILO Convention 169 in conjunction with the Paraguayan law on the Status of the Indigenous Communities, indicating that one must request of the Indigenous Community its consent in order to make it possible for it to be transferred to lands other than those claimed, the Commission finds that it is not a domestic remedy, and therefore it need not be exhausted by petitioners. 45 Therefore, given the characteristics of this case, the Commission considers that as regards a possible legislative remedy, domestic remedies have been exhausted, and, with respect to a possible administrative remedy, there has been unwarranted delay in the decision, triggering the exception provided for at Article 46(2)(c). 2. Time period for lodging a petition 46. Under Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention, petitions, to be admissible, must be lodged within six months of notification to the allegedly injured party of the judgment exhausting domestic remedies. Article 32 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure establishes: “In those cases in which the exceptions to the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies are applicable, 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.” 47. In the instant case, the Commission stated supra its finding that the exception to the prior exhaustion requirement applies. In this respect, the Commission considers that the petition submitted to the IACHR by the petitioners on May 15, 2001 was filed within a reasonable time, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the Senate rejected the request for expropriation on November 16, 2000. 3. Duplication of procedures 48. Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention establish as admissibility requirements that the subject matter of the petition or communication not be pending before another international proceeding for settlement, and that it not be substantially the same as a petition already examined by the Commission or any other international body. 8