9 46. With respect to the second phase, and according to what the State reported, in November 2000, the First Instance Judge for Childhood, Adolescence and Adolescents in Conflict with the Law of Department of Chimaltenango took cognizance of the matter. According to the State, “said Judge modified the decision duly handed down on the appeal for review lodged on August 25, 1997 by Mrs. Flor de María Ramírez Escobar. The Judge upheld the appeal as he considered that neither Mrs. Ramírez Escobar nor Mr. Gustavo Amílcar Tobar Fajardo, father of the minor Osmín Ricardo Tobar Ramírez, had been provided sufficient opportunity to show that they offered the appropriate psychological, emotional and family setting for their children and in order for them to provide a supplemental statement.” The State added that, “nevertheless, it should be recalled that the minors by that date had already been given up for adoption as of June 2, 1998.” 47. The Court ordered that a social and psychological study be conducted, which provided favorable results for the children’s biological parents. Subsequently, the Court initiated the proceedings with regard to possible letters rogatory to the Embassy of the United States, but these measures were not duly completed due to a procedure to determine whether the children’s father was going to defray the costs related to the translation and other aspects of said letters. The petitioners have held that the transfer of said procedural burden to Mr. Gustavo Amílcar Tobar Fajardo, even when he had stated his consent, shows that he did not have effective access to domestic remedies. They also have alleged that Mr. Tobar Fajardo was not notified of the subsequent proceedings regarding the issue of costs. The State, for its part, has failed to present specific arguments regarding the costs, or why, in this case, such costs should have been borne by Mr. Tobar Fajardo and not by the State itself. Likewise, it has failed to present specific arguments or information with regard to the notification of the subsequent measure. As a result, the Commission concludes that the information available indicates, prima facie, that Mrs. Ramírez Escobar and Mr. Tobar Fajardo did not have effective access to domestic legal remedies. 48. The IACHR recalls that invoking the exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies provided for in Article 46(2) of the Convention is closely tied to the determination of potential violation of certain rights enshrined therein, such as guarantees of access to justice. Nevertheless, Article 46(2), due to its nature and purpose, is a provision with autonomous content separate from the substantive provisions of the Convention. Therefore, the determination as to whether exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies provided for in said provision are applicable in this particular case are taken prior to and separate from an analysis of the merits of the matter, as it depends on a standard of assessment different from that used when determining violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. It should be clarified that the causes and effect that have hindered the exhaustion of domestic remedies in this case will be analyzed, as relevant, in the report that the Commission adopts on the merits of the case in order to assess whether these constitute violations of the Convention. 2. Deadline for submitting the petition 49. Article 46(b) of the American Convention provides that for a petition to be admissible to the Commission it must be submitted within a period of six months after the date when the alleged victim was notified of the final decision. In the claim under analysis, the IACHR has established the applicability of the exceptions to the exhaustion of domestic remedies in keeping with Article 46(2)(b) of the American Convention. In this regard, Article 32 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure provides that in cases where exceptions to the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies are applicable, the petition is to be submitted within a reasonable timeframe, as determined by the Commission. For such a purpose, the Commission is to consider the date when the alleged violation of rights occurred and the circumstances of each case. 50. In this case, the petition was received on August 1, 2006. Taking into account the applicability of the exception provided for under Article 46(2)(b) regarding the obstacles in accessing domestic remedies, the fact that the State has not offered arguments with regard to this point and that Mrs. Ramírez Escobar and Mr. Tobar Fajardo have not been able to effect a change in the situation reported—one that has consequences that continue over time—the Commission considers that the petition was submitted in a reasonable timeframe and the requirement for admissibility regarding the deadline for submission has been met.