83. The Commission observes that a number of claims have been made regarding the conditions of detention.The information available indicates that some petitioners have filed judicial and/or administrative actions on particular situations such as medical care or food, and have thus brought the alleged situation to the attention of the prison authorities. For its part, the State argues that it maintains high standards of quality in the penitentiary system. It does, however, report that there is overcrowding in the corrections facilities that has affected the detainees’ living conditions. 84. As to the allegedly prolonged preventive detention of Mr. Jorge Martínez Meléndez, the petitioners contend that domestic remedies were exhausted by means of the three habeas corpus proceedings that were filed. The State has presented no specific allegations on this matter. In this regard, the Commission notes that three habeas corpus petitions were filed to complain of the alleged extension or illegality of the preventive detention. Specifically, the first petition was filed on June 7, 2006 against the decision of the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of June 2, 2006, which prolonged indefinitely the precautionary measure of preventive detention until such time as the verdict should be handed down. It is alleged that this extension was given beyond the expiry of the lawful periods and without a date certain. In its resolution of June 23, 2006, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court denied the petition, finding that the extension was based on applicable legal norms, and that it was also based on “the still latent danger of flight, since the accused previously took advantage of his state of freedom to leave the country for Canada, where he remained for four years,…”, and that “the purpose sought with this measure is to ensure that the purposes of the trial are fulfilled”. In addition, on August 28, 2007 and January 28, 2007, two habeas corpus petitions were filed to challenge the fact that the alleged victim had been in detention without an order for imprisonment that could justify such a measure. Both petitions were decided by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court, one on September 7, 2007, which was which was denied, and the second on February 1, 2008, admitting the petition but not ordering the release of the alleged victim. It is therefore considered that the requirement for exhaustion of domestic remedies provided for in Article 46.1 of the American Convention was effectively complied with, in respect of that aspect of the complaint. C. Timeliness of the petition 85. Article 46.1.b of the Convention provides that in order for the petition to be found admissible, it must have been filed within six months of the date on which the interested Party was notified of the final decision exhausting domestic remedies.This rule does not apply when the Commission finds that any of the exceptions to exhaustion of domestic remedies set forth in Article 46.2 of the Convention have occurred. In such cases, the Commission must determine whether the petition was presented within a reasonable time, in accordance with Article 32 of its Rules of Procedure. 86. As stated, the Commission concluded that in the instant case, the exception provided for in Article 46.2.a of the American Convention applies.In view of the date or dates on which each of the petitions was filed –as noted in the pertinent sections on processing by the IACHR-, the Commission considers that the petitions were filed within a reasonable time period. Regarding the complaint concerning the prolonged preventive detention of Mr. Martínez Meléndez, it finds that the petition was submitted in accordance with the six-month deadline, given that the final petition for amparo ended subsequent to the submission of the original petition. D. Duplication of proceedings and international res judicata 87. Article 46 (1) (c) of the Convention provides that admission of the petitions is subject to the requirement "that the subject of the petition or communication is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement", and Article 47 (d) of the Convention stipulates that the Commission shall not admit a petition that is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization. In the petitions considered in the present report, the Parties have not put forward either of these two circumstances, nor are they inferred from the case files. 19