falls to the State to demonstrate that domestic remedies have not been exhausted, unless that is clearly evident from the record. 49. In the instant case, the petitioner filed actions to challenge the constitutionality of Senate resolutions 122 and 134: the first established the rules of procedure for the petitioner’s impeachment trial, while the second ordered his removal as a Supreme Court justice. As of the date of this report, no rulings have been delivered on those challenges, which were filed on November 27, 2003, and December 26, 2003, respectively. In fact, judging from the information available, in all these years there has been no procedural activity on these challenges because the Court that decides cases of this kind has not been established. 50. The petitioner maintains that he attempted to exhaust the applicable remedies by filing actions challenging the constitutionality of the impeachment proceeding conducted against him, but has yet to receive any response from the domestic system of justice. The State, for its part, contends that “given the consequence of a guilty verdict in an impeachment trial, which is simply to remove the accused, a high-ranking official of the State, from office, it has never been subject to appeal anywhere in the world because no penalty, damages or any other type of fine is involved.” The State also argues that the remedies of domestic law have not been exhausted because no actions have been filed to determine the individual liability of the senators who sat in judgment in the impeachment trial. 51. The Commission observes that the legally protected interests alleged to be involved include, among others, the independence of the Judicial Branch, the right to a defense, and due process during impeachment proceedings. These are issues related to the actions of the State as such and, therefore, a constitutionality challenge to be the suitable remedy. The remedies available to establish the individual liability of State agents who participated in the trial could not remediate the procedural or substantive issues brought before the Inter-American Commission, and the Paraguayan State has not demonstrated how these remedies may be suitable to address the situation in the reported complaint. 52. The requirement for the exhaustion of domestic remedies was conceived to favor the State, to allow it the opportunity to resolve matters of potential violations of human rights within its own legal framework. In the instant case, the State had the opportunity to act on the events described in this report when the petitioner filed constitutionality challenges against Resolutions 122 and 134. 53. The Commission notes that approximately five years have lapsed since the petitioner filed actions challenging the constitutionality Resolutions 122 and 134, but to date they have not been resolved. Remedies for which there is an unwarranted delay in rendering a judgment cannot be considered to be either available or effective, and the Commission cannot demand that they be exhausted. Therefore, the Commission finds that the exception to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies set forth in Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention, on unwarranted delay in rendering a judgment, applies to the aforementioned remedies. 2. Time period for lodging the petition 54. Under Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention, a petition must be lodged within six months from the date on which the party alleging violation of his rights was notified of the final judgment of the domestic courts.