6 interest in the investigation and in determining the perpetrators of the crime. Consequently, they argue that an exception to the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies applies under Article 46.2 of the American Convention. 29. Without going into an analysis of the arguments put forward by the parties with regard to the alleged violation of the right to a fair trial and judicial protection, the Commission notes that during the five years that have elapsed between the time Claudina Isabel Velásquez was found dead and the drafting of this report, the State’s representatives have not provided any concrete information on the conclusion of the process or on steps taken to move it beyond the initial stage of investigation. Nor has the State reported to the Commission any recent measures adopted by it or progress made in clarifying the facts and in punishing the responsible parties. The Guatemalan State has merely mentioned that it is involved in a fundamental stage in the line of investigation, but it has not given any specific information that would enable one to conclude that the investigation is adequate and effective, for the purposes of the present analysis on the requirement of prior exhaustion. 30. The Inter-American Commission further notes that the petitioners allege that the facts of this case have occurred in a situation in which there have been numerous murders and disappearances of women in Guatemala, and that most of these cases have not been solved by the government authorities, thereby perpetuating the impunity of acts of violence against women. 31. Consequently, the Inter-American Commission establishes, for purposes of admissibility, that with respect to the facts of this petition, there has been an unwarranted delay on the part of the Guatemalan judicial organs. Thus the IACHR concludes that the exception to the exhaustion of remedies under domestic law stipulated in Article 46.2.c of the American Convention applies to this case. 2. Deadline for filing the petition 32. According to the requirement stipulated in Article 46.1.b of the Convention, according to which the petition must be lodged within six months following the date on which the victim was notified of the final decision that exhausted the domestic remedies, the Commission does not consider that compliance with this deadline is applicable, since the petition was presented within the reasonable period of time referred to in Article 32.2 of its Rules of Procedure for cases in which a final judgment is not issued prior to the filing of the petition. 3. Duplication of international procedures and res judicata 33. The case records do not show that the subject of the petition is pending other international settlement procedures, or that it replicates a petition already examined by this or another international organization. Therefore, the requirements set forth in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention are considered as having been met. 4. Characterization of the alleged facts 34. The Commission is of the view that at this stage of the procedure, it is not appropriate for it to decide whether or not alleged violations occurred to the detriment of the alleged victims. For purposes of admissibility, at this point the IACHR must determine only if the acts described would, if proven, tend to establish violations of the American Convention, as stipulated in Article 47(b) therein, and if the petition is “manifestly groundless” or is “obviously out of order,” pursuant to the terms of subparagraph (c) of that Article.