proceedings have not yet been completed, due to the “serious problems afflicting the administration of justice in Ecuador.” Consequently, the Commission finds that the petitioners are not required to exhaust domestic remedies due to the exception provided in Article 46 (2)(c ) of the American Convention which provides that domestic remedies need not be exhausted for the purposes of admissibility when “there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. b. Timeliness of the petition 26. Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention provides that the petition must be lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the petitioner is notified of the final judgment that exhausted domestic remedies. Since the Commission considers that domestic remedies were exhausted by means of the writ of amparo and the Constitutional Court denied the writ on February 2, 1998, the petitioners are within the six months rule since they presented their petition on June 3, 1998. c. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 27. The Commission finds that the subject matter of the petition is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement, nor is the petition substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization. Accordingly, the requirements set forth in Articles 46(1)(c) have also been met. d. Characterization of the alleged facts 28. The Commission finds that the allegations, if proven, could establish violations of the rights recognized in Articles 21(2), 8(1), 25, and 2 of the American Convention in connection with Article 1(1) thereof. The petitioners maintain that they are victims of an outright confiscation, in that they have been deprived of the use and enjoyment of their property without having received just compensation from the State, as the law of Ecuador and the international treaties to which Ecuador is a party, require. In spite of the fact that the petitioners have sought judicial remedies since 1994, the Ecuadorian courts have failed to resolve the expropriation issue or to have paid them just compensation for the property. Consequently, the petition is not barred as inadmissible under Articles 47(b) or (c) of the Convention. V. CONCLUSION 29. Based on the factual and legal arguments given above and without prejudging the merits of the matter, the Commission concludes that this case meets the admissibility requirements set forth in Article 46 of the American Convention. THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, DECIDES: 1. To declare this case admissible as regards Articles 21(2), 8(1), 25, 2 and 1(1) of the American Convention. 2. To transmit this report to the petitioner and the State. 3. To continue with the analysis of merits in this case. 4. To publish this report and to include it in the Commission’s Annual Report to the OAS General Assembly. 6