43. The invocation of exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies provided for in Article 46.2 of the Convention is closely linked to the determination of possible violations of rights enshrined therein, such as ensuring access to justice. However, the Article 46.2, by its nature and object, is a rule with independent content vis-à-vis the substantive provisions of the Convention. Therefore, whether the exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies are applicable to the case in question should be determined prior and separate from the analysis of the merits, since it depends on a different standard of assessment than the one used to determine the possible violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. It should be noted that the causes and effects that prevented the exhaustion of domestic remedies will be analyzed in the report that the Commission issues on the merits of the case, to verify if these are violations of the American Convention. 2. Timeliness 44. The American Convention provides that for a petition to be admissible, it must be filed within six months from the date when the alleged injured party was notified of the final decision by domestic courts. Similarly, Article 32 of the Rules of the Commission states that in cases in which exceptions may apply to the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies provision, the petition must be filed within a reasonable time, at the discretion of the Commission. 45. As noted above, the State contends that the determination of the judge to hear the facts of the petition depends on the invocation of the so-called "conflict of competences”. It remarks that the petitioners invoked this recourse on April 18, 2005 in the ordinary courts and it was resolved unfavorably on May 3, 2005 by the Second Specialized Criminal Court of the Circuit. The State argues that this exhausted the remedies available in domestic jurisdiction in relation to this aspect of the claim of the petitioners and that therefore the petition filed in February 2006 exceeded the period of six months provided for in the Convention. Meanwhile, the petitioners argue that in view of the application of exceptions to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, in order to determine the reasonableness of the period for filing the petition, it must be taken into consideration that it was filed when the case was pending before Military Criminal Justice; that the partie civile has requested by all means17 a change of jurisdiction, without success; 17 The partie civile appealed the cessation of process in favor of the ones indicted before the Second Prosecutor’s Office of the Superior Military Tribunal. On April 18, 2005 the partie civile requested a change of jurisdiction to the Specialized Criminal