for revision. Since the petitioner was released and the Fourth Chamber of the Superior Court “provisionally” dismissed the charges against him, following the sole response of the State dated March 17, 1999; the Commission is of the view that domestic remedies have been exhausted in this case. b. As regards the petition of Mr. Lapo, the second petitioner 41. The State does not dispute that domestic remedies have been exhausted in this case, and that exhaustion was completed with the issuance of the Superior Court’s definitive dismissal order on October 26, 2001 and the release of the petitioner. Consequently, the Commission concludes that domestic remedies have been exhausted in this case. 2. Deadline for lodging the petition a. As regards the petition of Mr. Chaparro, the first petitioner 42. Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention provides that the petition must be lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the petitioner is notified of the final judgment that exhausted domestic remedies. The petitioner presented his complaint to the Commission on September 8, 1998 alleging that he was illegally and arbitrarily detained. The Ecuadorian Courts did not dismiss the charges against Mr. Chaparro for lack of evidence to inculpate him until November 12, 2001. Therefore, the petition was presented before the deadline. b. As regards the petition of Mr. Lapo, the second petitioner 43. Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention provides that the petition must be lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the petitioner is notified of the final judgment that exhausted domestic remedies. The petitioner presented his complaint to the Commission on April 14, 1999. The complaint was under study and communicated to the State on June 7, 2002 and the State incorrectly concluded that the petition had not been presented until that date, whereas, in fact, it was within the deadline. 3. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata a. As regards both petitions 44. The Commission finds that the subject matter of the petition is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement, nor is the petition substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization. Accordingly, the requirements set forth in Articles 46(1)(c) have also been met. 4. Characterization of the facts alleged a. As regards the petition of Mr. Chaparro, the first petitioner 45 The Commission finds that the allegations, if proven, could establish a violation of the rights recognized in Articles 5 and 7 of the American Convention. The State’s response does not address the issues raised under Articles 5 and 7, but limits itself to an allegation that Mr. Chaparro was afforded access to all available remedies under domestic law and that the proceedings respected the guarantees of due process. The petitioners further argue an alleged violation of Articles 8 and 25. An alleged arbitrary detention, which is not cured by available domestic remedies, may implicate violations of Articles 8 and 25 as regards the failure to afford access to a simple and prompt remedy for the detention and the guarantees of due process. The Commission frames the issue presented in this case as the right of the State, under the American Convention, to hold an individual in detention for more than eighteen months, when, as the petitioner maintains, there is