essential protection, and constitutes the ideal remedy in cases in which allegations are made of arbitrary detention and abuse. Furthermore, both the Commission and the Inter-American Court have on several occasions described the legal and practical obstacles experienced by persons accused of crimes linked with terrorism and treason against the nation during the same period in which the events that are the subject of this study took place. 5 59. Concerning the petitioner’s allegation that her right protected by the Convention to not be subjected to a new trial for the same facts was violated as a result of the annulment of the judgment acquitting her and the opening of new legal oral proceedings against her, and in relation to the argument by the State that legal proceedings already existed against the alleged victim and that these would continue to be in force even in her absence, the Commission considers that these allegations deserve complete and detailed study in the respective merits stage. 60. Therefore, based on the allegations by the parties, an examination of the relevant laws, and in accordance with the evidence described in the file lodged before the Commission, the IACHR considers that the obstacles mentioned above might have denied the petitioner access to appropriate and effective remedies to resolve the alleged violations of her rights. 61. Based on the foregoing, the Commission considers that there exist sufficient grounds to exempt the petitioner from the obligation of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies as the exceptions described in Article 46.2.a and b of the American Convention are applicable in this case and therefore the requirement envisaged with regard to the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies may not be demanded. 2. Deadline for presentation of petitions 62. Article 46.1.b. establishes that for a petition to be declared admissible, it must be presented within a period of six months from the date on which the complaining party was notified of the final judgment from the domestic court. This six-month rule serves to guarantee legal certainty and stability once a decision has been adopted. 63. Pursuant to Article 32.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR, in cases where the exception to the exhaustion of remedies available under domestic law is applicable, the Commission must decide whether the petition was lodged within a reasonable time. In accordance with this article, the Commission “shall consider the date on which the alleged violation of rights occurred and the circumstances of each case.” 64. In the present case, the Commission has established that the exceptions provided in Article 46.2.a and b. of the Convention are applicable and it must therefore decide whether the petition was lodged within a reasonable time, taking into account the specific circumstances of the situation presented for its consideration. In this regard, the Commission notes that the petitioner alleges that she lodged the petition within a reasonable period in view of the particular nature of her complaint. 65. Therefore, the IACHR must consider that this petition alleges that the petitioner was subjected to abusive treatment and torture, within the framework of criminal proceedings opened against her on April 30, 1992, for the crime of terrorism and that these, following a final, definitive acquittal, were re-opened on the basis of the same circumstantial evidence, and are still pending resolution at the time of preparing this report, almost 16 years later, which could amount to an assumption of ongoing violation. The above is considered in conjunction with the petitioner’s allegations regarding the conditions in which she was detained and her sudden departure from the country on August 16, 1993 due to alleged death threats and other intimidating acts. In view of these circumstances and considering that the petition 5 I/A Court H.R., De la Cruz Flores Case, Judgment November 18, 2004. Series C, No. 115, paragraph 114. See also Castillo Páez Case, Judgment November 1997, Series C, No. 34, paragraphs 81 and 82. 10