must be exhausted (see paragraph 30 ut supra). Consequently, the Commission believes it is unnecessary to examine whether the remedies invoked by the State are adequate and effective to remedy the violation alleged by the petitioner according to the principles set forth in paragraph 27 ut supra. The Commission concludes that with the judgments of the corresponding appeals courts that reviewed the petitions that the petitioners filed on June 22, 1995, October 31, 1996 and March 6, 1997 seeking his own release, the petitioner has complied with the rule requiring exhaustion of local remedies, provided for in Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention with respect to the right to be tried within a reasonable period or to be released. b. Deadline for filing 39. Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention provides that for a petition to be admitted, it must be “lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the party alleging violation of his rights was notified of the final judgment." Under Article 46(2)(c), that requirement will not apply when “there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies.” 40. In the preceding section, the Commission concludes that the Article 46(2)(c) exception to the rule requiring exhaustion of the remedies under domestic law applies inthe following cases: a) the criminal case instituted against the petitioner for commission of a number of crimes; b) the inquiry being conducted to ascertain the responsibility for the alleged torture; c) the inquiries concerning the petitioner’s preventive detention pending trial, and d) the motion the petitioner filed to retract his confession. In view of the circumstances herein examined, the Commission considers that the six-month time period established in the Convention for filing a petition does not apply on this point. Concerning the criminal case being prosecuted in Federal Criminal and Correctional Court Nº 6, wherein Mr. Bayarri is charged with a number of crimes, the Commission has concluded that the exception provided for in Article 46(2)(a) applies, which means that the rule set forth in Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention does not apply. 29 41. Concerning the petitioner’s allegation of his protracted preventive detention without a final judgment, the Commission observes that the Court authorities handed down final judgments on several occasions since the petitioner lodged his petition with the Commission. The IACHR notes that the parties themselves mention the decisions the Argentine courts handed down on June 22, 1995, October 31, 1996, and March 6, 1997, wherein requests for release were denied. The Commission further notes that by those dates, the case was already in process with the Commission. Therefore, the deadline requirement established in Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention has been satisfied. c. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 42. Under Article 46(1)(c), one requirement for the admissibility of a communication or petition is that the subject is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement. Further, under Article 47(d) of the Convention, any petition shall be considered inadmissible when it is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization. Neither of the hypotheticals posited in those articles is present in the instant case. The parties have neither alleged nor proven that the subject matter before 29 Concerning the State’s waiver of any objection based on the rule stipulating the time period for filing a petition, the Inter-American Court has held that: “Since that period depends on the exhaustion of domestic remedies, it is for the Government to demonstrate to the Commission that the period has indeed expired. Here again, the Court’s earlier decision regarding the waiver of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies is relevant: Generally recognized principles of international law indicate, first, that there is a rule that may be waived, either expressly or by implication, by the State having the right to invoke it, as the Court has already recognized (see Viviana Gallardo et al., Judgment of November 13, 1981, Nº G 101/81. Series A, para. 26).” Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Caso Neira Alegría et al., Preliminary Objections, Judgment of December 11, 1991, Series C No.13, par. 30. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has followed the Court’s reasoning in, inter alia, Report Nº 22/00, Case 11.732, Horacio Anibal Schillizzi Moreno, Argentina, decision of March 7, 2000, par. 30: “At no time during the processing of this case before the Commission did the State allege there was a failure to meet the deadline requirements for the remedies exhausted by Mr. Schillizzi. Consequently, the State may be considered to have tacitly abandoned any objection based on failure to comply with this requirement. Consequently, the Commission concludes that the petition complies with the requirement established in Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention.” 13