61. In a criminal investigation of this nature, from the moment the authorities enter the crime scene, its preservation, the way the forensic personnel handle the bodies, autopsy procedures– which must meet international standards-and the chain of custody of the evidence gathered, are functions that, in combination with other investigative procedures, are essential to establish what happened and to identify the authors, in order to bring them to trial. In the instant case, the absence of all this activity at the time and, worse still, the measures these State agents allegedly took to hide the facts, combined with the amount of time that passed before these facts were uncovered, does not augur well for the effectiveness of the domestic remedy to meet the requirement established in Article 46(2) of the American Convention. 8 The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has held that while every criminal investigation must meet a number of legal requirements, the rule of prior exhaustion of the remedies under domestic law must never lead to a halt or delay that would render international action in support of victims useless.9 62. The Commission therefore considers that the exceptions provided for in Article 46(2)(a) and (c) of the American Convention do apply, and that the rule requiring exhaustion of the remedies under domestic law does not apply to the present case in regard to the investigation and prosecution of the members of the “Chavín de Huántar” Commando Group who took part in the events denounced, or in regard to the State agents who had a hand in the cover-up once the alleged extrajudicial executions occurred. 2. Time period for lodging the petition 63. The Commission also considers that the requirement set forth in Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention to the effect that a petition 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 that exhausted domestic remedies, does not apply inasmuch as the petition was lodged within the reasonable time period referred to in Article 32(2) of its Rules of Procedure for cases in which no final ruling has been delivered prior to presentation of the petition. 3. Duplication of international proceedings and international res judicata 64. It is the Commission’s understanding that the subject matter of the petitions is not pending with another international arrangement for settlement and is not substantially the same as one previously examined by the Commission or by another international organization. Therefore, the requirements established in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention have been met. a. Characterization of the facts alleged 65. The petitioners are alleging violations of the right to life, the right to judicial guarantees and the right to judicial protection recognized in Articles 4, 8 and 25, respectively, of the American Convention, in connection to Article 1(1) of the Convention. 66. The Commission considers that the debate over the existence of violations of Articles 4, 8 and 25 of the American Convention in connection to Article 1(1) must be examined when the merits of the case are analyzed. For admissibility purposes, the Commission concludes that the petition does state facts that tend to establish violations of human rights and that the petition is not obviously groundless or patently out of order. 8 IACHR, Admissibility Report Nº 57/00, La Granja, Ituango, Colombia, (2000), para. 44. 9 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987, para. 93. 11