observed in order to analyze this, as well as scenarios such as the inexistence or ineffectiveness of the available remedies, as well as continuing or permanent situations. In this regard, the Court has indicated that the six months rule established in Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention must be applied in accordance with the facts of the specific case in order to ensure the effective exercise of the right to lodge individual petitions. 13 22. In this case, the initial petition was lodged on November 20, 1997, 14 and forwarded to the State on December 10, 1997. 15 The Court has verified that, during the admissibility stage, the State presented six briefs. In four of these briefs it asked the Commission to declare the petition inadmissible and to archive it. To this end, the State submitted two different arguments. First, in its brief answering the petition of February 12, 1998, 16 it argued the inadmissibility of the petition “because its presentation was time-barred, after the six-month period following the date of which the final judgment was notified” in the criminal proceeding before the Third Permanent Military Court. Subsequently, the State presented information on the criminal proceeding arising from the investigation opened based on the complaint filed by Porfirio Osorio Rivera before the Special Prosecutor for Enforced Disappearances, Extrajudicial Executions and Exhumation of Clandestine Graves on June 14, 2004. 17 The forgoing reveals that, even though the State had initially filed this objection at the proper procedural moment, it subsequently adopted a different position during the admissibility proceeding by affirming that “[t]he criminal proceeding ha[d] not yet concluded,” 18 and then returned to its initial argument in the proceedings before this Court. 23. The Court finds no evidence in this case to make it disagree with the decision on admissibility adopted by the Inter-American Commission. When analyzing the requirement established in Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention, and in order adopt a decision on the admissibility requirements, the Commission considered that the proceeding opened in the military jurisdiction “did not constitute an effective remedy.” 19 Accordingly, the Commission continued its examination of admissibility based on the investigations that had been opened in the special ordinary jurisdiction and concluded, in the terms of Article 46(2)(c) of the Convention, that there had been an unwarranted delay in rendering judgment. 20 Thus, since the exceptions established in Article 46(2) do not require the exhaustion of domestic remedies, neither is the said requirement of the six-month period applicable in these circumstances; 21 instead, the parameter that must be 13 Cf. Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (“In vitro fertilization”) v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2012. Series C No. 257, para. 35, and Case of Mémoli v. Argentina, supra, para. 30. 14 Cf. Initial petition lodged before the Commission on November 20, 1997 (file of proceedings before the Commission, volume I, folios 209 to 212). 15 Cf. Communication of the Inter-American Commission of December 10, 1997 (file of proceedings before the Commission, volume I, folio 203). 16 Cf. Brief of the State of Peru of February 10, 1998 (file of proceedings before the Commission, volume I, folios 192 to 196). See also, Brief of the State of Peru of June 18, 2010 (file of proceedings before the Commission, volume I, folios 24 to 40). 17 Cf. Brief of the State of Peru of February 17, 2005 (file of proceedings before the Commission, volume I, folios 131 to 133); Brief of the State of Peru of April 5, 2010 (file of proceedings before the Commission, volume I, folios 94 to 101), and Brief of the State of Peru of June 18, 2010 (file of proceedings before the Commission, volume I, folios 24 to 40). 18 Brief of the State of Peru of June 18, 2010 (file of proceedings before the Commission, volume I, folios 24 to 40). 19 Admissibility Report No. 76/10, Case of 11,845, Jeremías Osorio Rivera and others, Peru, July 12, 2010, para. 29 (file of proceedings before the Commission, volume I, folios 7 to 15). 20 Cf. Admissibility Report No. 76/10, Case of 11,845, Jeremías Osorio Rivera and others, Peru, July 12, 2010, para. 31 (file of proceedings before the Commission, volume I, folios 7 to 15). 21 In this regard, Article 46(2) of the American Convention indicates that: 2. The provisions of paragraphs 1.a and 1.b of this article shall not be applicable when: 11