34. The Inter-American Commission also considers it pertinent to point out that --as alleged by the petitioners and not disputed by the State-the judicial appeals that have been filed since 1989 in the course of the administrative demarcation process have been initiated by third parties with an interest in the indigenous land, for the purpose of challenging, obstructing, or annulling the administrative demarcation process. In other words, these judicial appeals are not filed by the petitioners or the alleged victims, nor on their behalf. This is the case, for example with the objection motion (No. 2002.83.00.012334-9), the suit to regain possession (No. 92.0002697-4), and the suit to annul the administrative demarcation process (No. 2002.83.00019349-2). Therefore, the InterAmerican Commission will not consider these remedies when determining whether the requirement for prior exhaustion of domestic remedies has been met in accordance with Article 46.1.a of the American Convention. 35. In short, FUNAI and the Ministry of Justice began the administrative measures specified in domestic legislation for restoration of the Xucuru indigenous people’s traditional habitat in 1989, and to date --20 years later-- the matter has still not been finally settled. The State has not presented specific and concrete information on particular circumstances applicable to this case that could justify, for the purposes of the admissibility ruling, the aforementioned length of time without finalizing the administrative demarcation process. Taking into account the circumstances of the present petition, the IACHR considers that the time elapsed since the start of the administrative process greatly exceeds what would be reasonable, in order to ensure the basic rights of the Xucuru indigenous people. Therefore, the IACHR considers that there has been unwarranted delay in the pertinent administrative route, i.e., the administrative demarcation process, so the exception established in Article 46.2.c of the American Convention is applicable. 9 36. It must also be noted that applying the exceptions to the rule for exhaustion of domestic remedies of Article 46.2 of the American Convention is closely linked to determining possible violations of certain rights established in that international instrument, such as the guarantees of access to justice. Nonetheless, Article 46.2 of the American Convention, by its nature and purpose, has its own autonomous content vis á vis the substantive norms of that international 9 See, mutatis mutandi, IACHR. Report N° 11/03, Admissibility, P 0326, Xakmok Kásek Indigenous Community, Paraguay, February 20, 2003, para. 38; and Report N° 12/03, Admissibility, P 0322/2001, Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community of the Enxet People, Paraguay, February 20, 2003, para. 45. 12