44. As for the investigations reopened in the courts of ordinary jurisdiction in 2003, the information that the parties supplied indicates that on November 28, 2006, Lima’s Supraprovincial Criminal Court declared the commencement of an inquiry against three Navy officers to be out of order. On September 25, 2007, the National Criminal Chamber confirmed the dismissal of the criminal inquiry against one of the accused and returned the complaint to the Public Prosecutor’s Office to introduce corrections that take the Court’s observations into account before filing new charges against the other two officers. 45. According to the State, the Office of the First Supra-provincial Prosecutor of Ayacucho has requested new measures to make corrections taking into account the observations made by the National Criminal Chamber in its ruling of September 25, 2007. From the information in the case file it would appear that the Public Prosecutor’s Office has not yet filed new changes. Hence, the investigations are still in the preliminary phase. 46. In the merits stage the Commission will examine whether, in the proceedings conducted in courts of ordinary and military jurisdiction, the Peruvian State provided an effected remedy, with due guarantees, to the alleged victim’s next of kin vis-à-vis its obligations under articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. However, at this stage of the proceedings, and without prejudging on the merits of the subject matter, the Commission considers that the more than 25 years that have passed since the alleged disappearance of Rigoberto Tenorio Roca, without a determination as to his whereabouts or a definitive determination of what transpired and punishment of those responsible, are sufficient to conclude that there has been an unwarranted delay in the terms of Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention. C. Time period for lodging the petition 47. Under Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention, in order to be admitted a petition must be lodged within six months from the date on which the party alleging violation of his rights was notified of the final judgment that exhausted the remedies available via the domestic system. However, this rule does not apply when one of the exceptions that Article 46(2) of the Convention establishes applies. In such cases, the Commission must determine whether the petition was lodged within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with Article 32 of its Rules of Procedure. 48. As indicated in paragraph 46 supra, the Commission concluded that in the present case, the unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment, established as an exception in Article 46(2)(c) of the Convention, applies. Given that the alleged victim’s forced disappearance would constitute a continuing violation and taking into consideration the failure to establish his whereabouts, the failure to determine responsibilities and the alleged denial of justice in proceedings that have since been closed and in proceedings that are still in progress, the Commission finds that the petition was lodged within a reasonable period of time. D. Duplication of proceedings and international res judicata 49. Article 46(1)(c) of the Convention provides that one of the requirements that must be met in order for the Commission to admit a petition is that the subject of the petition “is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement.” Article 47(d) of the Convention provides that the Commission shall consider inadmissible any petition or communication that is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization.” Neither of the parties in the instant case has claimed that either of these conditions is present, nor can their presence be inferred from the case file. E. Characterization of the facts alleged 50. For admissibility purposes, the Commission must determine whether the petition states facts that tend to establish a violation of the rights guaranteed by the American Convention, as required under its Article 47(b), and whether the petition is “manifestly groundless or obviously out of order,” as stipulated in Article 47(c). The standard to assess these extremes is different from the one needed to decide the merits of a petition. At the admissibility phase of 8