42. In the case at hand, the State is not claiming the failure to exhaust domestic remedies and therefore, it can be presumed to have tacitly waived its opportunity to 13 argue the failure to exhaust domestic remedies. The Inter-American Court has stated in this regard, that “the objection asserting the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, to be timely, must be made at an early stage of the proceedings by the State entitled to 14 make it, lest a waiver of the requirement be presumed.” In accordance with the foregoing considerations, the Commission concludes that this requirement was met. 2. Time Frame for Lodging the Petition 43. Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention establishes that in order for a petition to be declared admissible it must have been lodged within six months from the date on which the interested party was notified of the final judgment in the domestic venue. However, according to Article 46(2) of the Convention and 32(2) of the Commission’s Regulations, "The rule does not apply when it has been impossible to exhaust internal remedies due to a lack of due process, denial of access to remedies, or unwarranted delay in issuing a final decision […] Nor does this rule apply where the allegations concern a continuing situation--where the rights of the victim are allegedly affected on 15 an ongoing basis". 44. With regard to the instant petition, the IACHR determined that the State implicitly waived its ability to invoke the objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies. But it should be noted that the Convention presents both requirements—exhaustion of domestic remedies and the lodging of the petition within six months from the date of the final judgment in the domestic venue—as two distinct and independent criteria. The IACHR must determine whether the petition was lodged within a reasonable time frame. In the case at hand, the complaint was lodged on November 14, 2003, one month after the formal complaint was lodged with the authorities; therefore, the requirement set forth in Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention on the timely lodging of the complaint has been met. 3. Duplication of proceedings and international res judicata 45. There is no indication in the file of the instant petition that this matter is pending a decision in another proceeding for international settlement, or that it duplicates a proceeding that has already been resolved by the IACHR. Therefore, the IACHR concludes that the exceptions set forth in Article 46(1)(d) and in Article 47(d) of the American Convention do not apply. 4. Characterization of the alleged facts 13 See Inter-Am Ct HR, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987, Para. 88. See also: IACHR Report Nº 30/96, Case 10.897, Guatemala, October 16, 1996, Para. 35 and Report Nº 53/96, Case 8074, Guatemala, December 6, 1996. Annual Report of the IACHR 1996. Report Nº 25/94, Case 10.508, Guatemala, September 22 1994, page 52. Annual Report of the IACHR 1994. 14 See Inter-Am Ct HR, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987, Para. 8[sic]; Case of Fairén Garbi and Solis Corrales, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, , Ser. C, Nº 2, Para. 87; Case of Gangaram Panday, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of December 4, 1991, Ser C, Nº 12, Para. 38; and Case of Loayza Tamayo, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of January 31, 1996, Ser. C, Nº 25, Para. 40. 15 See IACHR, Report N° 72/03 (Admissibility), Petition 12.159, Gabriel Egisto Santillán, para. 60; Report Nº 33/99 (Admissibility), Case 11.763, Plan de Sánchez Massacre, Guatemala, April 16, 1999, paras. 29 and 30.