46(2) of the American Convention, on the grounds that more than 30 years have elapsed since the forced disappearance of the alleged victims and yet the facts have not been clarified, demonstrating that access to justice has been denied through negligence, omission and delaying tactics on the part of the judiciary. The petitioners maintain that this represents unwarranted delay in the administration of justice and the lack of an adequate legal process for punishing those responsible for the State’s alleged violations. 40. In this case, the Commission considers that there is validity to the exception of unwarranted delay in the rendering of judgment, pursuant to Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention. At the date this report was prepared, i.e. more than 30 years after the forced disappearance of Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas and José Luis Ibsen Peña, the State had not concluded the criminal proceedings necessary to resolve the matter within its internal jurisdiction.12 41. By virtue of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that, even if domestic judicial remedies were not exhausted, there are grounds for exception to that rule, namely the "unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies" stipulated in Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention and in Article 31(2) c) of the IACHR rules of procedure. 42. It remains to be noted that the invocation of the exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies provided in Article 46(2) of the Convention is closely linked to the determination of possible violations of certain rights enshrined therein, such as guarantees of access to justice. However, Article 46.2 of the Convention, by its nature and purpose, is a rule with autonomous content vis-à-vis the substantive rules of the Convention. Consequently, a determination as to whether exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies are applicable to the case in question must be addressed before and separately from an analysis of the merits of the case, since it depends on a standard of appreciation different from that used in determining the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. It must be noted that the causes and effects that have prevented the exhaustion of local remedies in this case will be analyzed, as applicable, in the report that the Commission will adopt on the merits of the dispute, in order to determine whether violations of the American Convention do indeed exist. In light of these arguments, the Commission considers that there are sufficient elements of judgment to exempt the petitioners from the exhaustion of domestic remedies, through application of Article 46.2 of the American Convention. C. Time limit for submission of the petition 43. Article 32 of the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR provide that in those cases in which exceptions to the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies are applicable, the petition must be presented within a reasonable period of time. The Bolivian State argues that the petition should be declared inadmissible as it is too late. The petitioners for their part have argued that irregularities in the criminal proceedings, as well as the situation of impunity that surrounds the case, should render inapplicable the six-month time limit stipulated in the Convention. 44. In the case at hand, the IACHR has already examined the exception provided in Article 46(2)(c) with respect to "unwarranted delay", in its analysis of the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 46(1)(a), in paragraph 40 above. In light of those circumstances, the Commission does not need to examine that exception further. Moreover, taking into account the dates of the alleged facts, the possibility of a continuing situation of human rights violations, and the status of the various internal remedies attempted in Bolivia, the Commission considers that the petition was presented within a reasonable time. D. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 12 IACHR. Report 14/04 Admissibility. Peru. Case 11.568, Luis Antonio Galindo Cárdenas, 27 February 2004, paras. 39 and 40. IACHR. Report 52/97, Admissibility, Nicaragua. Case 11.218 Arges Sequeira Mangas. 18 February 1998, para. 96. 7