six-month time period for lodging a petition shall not be applicable in this case. Under Article 32(2) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, in those cases in which the exceptions to the requirement of prior exhaustion of local remedies are applicable, the petition is to be presented within what the Commission considers to be a reasonable time period. In the present situation, the Commission is taking into account the date on which the alleged violations of rights occurred, the context at the time and the procedural activity of the petitioner. From that it concludes that the petition has been presented within a reasonable period of time. 3. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 27. Under Article 46(1)(c) of the Convention, one of the admissibility requirements is that the subject matter of the petition or communication is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement. Likewise, Article 47(d) of the Convention states that any petition that is substantially the same as another previously studied by the Commission or by some other international organization shall not be admissible. In the present case, the parties have neither alleged nor shown that the subject put to the Commission for consideration is pending in another international proceeding for settlement or that it has already been decided by another international organization, or that it is substantially the same as one the Commission previously examined. The Commission, therefore, concludes that these requirements have been met. 4. Characterization of the facts alleged 28. Article 47(b) of the Convention provides that the Commission shall consider inadmissible any petition that does not state facts that tend to establish a violation of the rights the Convention guarantees. The Commission considers that the following facts alleged by the petitioners could tend to establish violations of the American Declaration, the American Convention, the Convention on Forced Disappearance, and the Convention against Torture: a. The forced disappearance of Mr. Portugal more than 30 years ago could tend to establish a violation of Articles II and III of the Convention on Forced Disappearance, Articles 1, 4 and 7 of the American Convention, and Articles I, XXV, XXVI of the American Declaration. b. The torture inflicted upon Mr. Portugal and the anguish his next of kin endured could tend to establish a violation of Article 5 of the American Convention and Article 1 of the American Declaration. c. The absence and ineffectiveness of remedies under domestic law to set right the situations alleged by the petitioners could tend to establish a violation of the rights of Mr. Portugal's next of kin: Graciela de León de Rodríguez, Patria Portugal, and Franklin Portugal, specifically the rights recognized in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention and Article XVIII of the American Declaration. 29. When analyzing the merits of the case, the Commission shall also consider the following: a. Whether the anguish felt by Mr. Portugal’s next of kin could tend to establish a violation of Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention against Torture. b. The absence and ineffectiveness of remedies under domestic law to set right the situations alleged by the petitioners could tend to establish a violation of the rights of Mr. Portugal's next of kin in respect of Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention against Torture. 30. The Commission therefore concludes that the petition satisfies the requirement stipulated in Article 47(b) of the American Convention. V. CONCLUSIONS 31. Having examined the present case, the Commission concludes that it has competence to take cognizance of it. The Commission concludes that the exception stipulated in Article 46(2)(c) to the rule requiring exhaustion of local remedies is applicable; that the six-month rule stipulated in Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention does not, therefore, apply; and that the 7