noted that the military justice system is not a suitable venue for examining alleged violations of human rights committed by members of the security forces.18 Similarly, the Inter-American Court has ruled that military justice is an adequate forum only for trying members of the military for crimes or misdemeanors which by their very nature infringe legal interests particular to the military order. 19 For that reason, and in determining the admissibility of this complaint, the Commission notes that the military justice system was used to investigate the death of Mirey Trueba, a civilian, and to prosecute and punish a member of the army. In that regard, it finds that the instant case constitutes an alleged lack of access to a suitable and independent judicial remedy to investigate, prosecute, and punish the person responsible for the death of the victim and, therefore, gives rise to the exception provided at Article 46(2)(b) of the American Convention. 51. Furthermore, the invocation of Article 46.2’s exceptions to the prior exhaustion rule bears an intimate relation with the possible violation of certain rights protected by the Convention, such as the guarantee of access to justice. However, by its very nature and purpose, Article 46.2 is a provision with autonomous content vis-à-vis the Convention’s substantive precepts. Consequently, whether or not the Convention’s exceptions to the rule requiring the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies are applicable in the case at hand must be decided prior to and in isolation from the analysis of the merits of the case, and that is because it depends on a standard of appreciation that is different from the one used to determine whether or not Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention have been violated.20 It should be noted that the causes and effects that have prevented the exhaustion of domestic remedies in the case at hand will be analyzed, as appropriate, in the Commission’s report on the merits of the dispute, in determining whether or not the American Convention was in fact violated. 2. Period for lodging a petition 52. Under the terms of Article 46.1.b be admitted it must have been lodged within a date on which the complainant was notified of level. The six-month rule guarantees certainty has been adopted. of the Convention, for a petition to period of six months following the the final judgment at the national and legal stability once a decision 18 Report on Admissibility No. 84/98, Case 11.710, Carlos Manuel Prada González and Evelio Antonio Bolaño Castro, Colombia, September 25, 1998, paragraph 41. “Military tribunals do not guarantee that the right to a fair trial will be observed since they do not have the independence that is a condition sine qua non for this right to be exercised. Moreover, their rulings have frequently been biased and have failed to punish members of the security forces whose serious involvement in serious human rights violations has been established.” 19 Report No. 74/01, Case 11.662, Giaccommo Turra, Colombia, October 10, 2001. 20 Report on Admissibility No. 93/06, Petition 972-03, Valentina Rosendo Cantu, Mexico, October 21, 2006. 13