9 reasonable time. Therefore, the petitioners do not have the procedural burden of invoking and exhausting domestic remedies with respect to this aspect of the petition. 2. Time for submitting the petition 51. The American Convention establishes that in order for a petition to be admissible it must be filed within six months from the date on which the person allegedly injured has been notified of the final decision by the domestic courts. In addition, Article 32 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission establishes that in those cases in which the exceptions to the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies apply, the petition should be filed within a time that the Commission considers reasonable. 52. For the purposes of establishing whether the petition has been submitted in timely fashion, the Commission considers that the petitioners’ claim was made in relation to a set of alleged interrelated facts that are said to have been set in motion from the first detention of the alleged victim in 1997, and that they continued with his second detention and with the military and regular jurisdiction criminal proceeding in the different stages, which culminated in the finding that the action had prescribed and would be closed. The Commission takes into account that the petition was submitted to the Commission on March 29, 2000, as that situation continued to unfold. Therefore, in view of the context and the characteristics of the petition, the Commission considers that it was submitted in timely fashion. 3. Duplication of international proceeding 53. It does not appear from the record that the subject matter of the petition is pending in another international proceeding for settlement, or that it reproduces a petition already examined by this or any other international organization. Therefore, the requirements established at Articles 46(1)(b) and 47(a) of the Convention have been met. 4. Characterization of the facts alleged 54. Given the information presented by the parties and the nature of the matter put before it, the Commission finds that in the instant case the petitioners’ arguments regarding the alleged violations of the right to personal liberty and to judicial guarantees, which include the alleged incommunicado detention, if proven, tend to establish possible violations of the rights protected in the American Convention at Articles 5, 7, and 8, to the detriment of Gonzalo Orlando Cortéz Espinoza, all in keeping with its Article 1(1). 55. The IACHR, in application of the principle of iura novit curia, considers that the facts tend to establish violations of the right provided for at Article 25 of the American Convention given the failure to investigate the facts that are the subject matter of the instant petition, and the alleged delay in the criminal proceeding against the victim. As it is not evident that these aspects of the claim are manifestly groundless or obviously out of order, the Commission considers that the requirements established at Articles 47(b) and (c) of the American Convention have been met. 56. The Commission notes that the petitioners argued the violation of the alleged victim’s right to private property; its arguments included that he “was unable to recover the attached money from his savings accounts.” From the information available in the record, it appears that the bond he put up was returned. Nonetheless, one cannot infer whether the savings accounts continued to be subject to attachment due to the regular criminal proceeding against him, and whether the money was returned as a result of the declaration that the case against him had