and the information on the file in this case, the Commission finds, for purposes of admissibility, that the military investigation into the deeds denounced does not constitute an adequate remedy. Consequently, the IACHR considers that the exception to exhaustion of domestic remedies stipulated in Article 46(2) of the Convention applies in this case. 41. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has held that invoking the exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies contemplated in Article 46(2) is closely linked to determining possible violations of certain rights protected in the Convention, such as the right to due process and the right to judicial protection established in Articles 8 and 25.28 42. Nevertheless, Article 46(2), by its nature and objective, has independent effect with respect to the substantive standards of the Convention. Therefore, determining the applicability of the exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies must in this case be addressed previously and separately from analysis of the merits of the case, because it depends on different criteria from those used to determine violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. The causes and effects that have prevented exhaustion of the investigation of the facts in this case will be analyzed in the IACHR's report on the merits of the dispute, in order to determine whether they constitute violations of the American Convention. 43. The IACHR concludes that the judgment of August 14, 2002, exhausted domestic jurisdiction with respect to criminal proceedings against Messrs. Cabrera García and Montiel Flores. The IACHR also concludes that the military investigation does not constitute an adequate remedy for investigating the acts of torture denounced by the representatives of the victims, and consequently the petitioners are exempt from the requirement of exhausting that remedy. 2. Time period for submission of the petition 44. The petition in question was submitted on October 25, 2001, prior to the date of the ruling that exhausted domestic remedies with respect to criminal proceedings against Messrs. Teodoro Cabrera García and Rodolfo Montiel Flores. Therefore, the requirement established in Article 46(1) of the Convention is satisfied. With respect to investigation of the alleged acts of torture, the IACHR considers that the petition was submitted within a reasonable time. 3. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 45. The petition does not provide any information from which it could be inferred that the matter is pending in another international proceeding, or that it has previously been decided by the Inter-American Commission. Consequently, the IACHR concludes that the exceptions stipulated in Article 46(1)(d) and in Article 47(d) of the Convention do not apply. 4. Characterization of the facts alleged 46. The petition refers to the alleged illegal detention and torture of Messrs. Cabrera García and Montiel Flores, and the denial of justice. The State has not directly denied that the alleged facts constitute possible violations of the Convention, although it argues that the petitioners had remedies available that could resolve their situation. 47. It is not appropriate at this stage of proceedings to determine whether the American Convention was actually violated. For purposes of admissibility, the IACHR must determine whether the facts as set forth characterize a violation, as stipulated in Article 47 of the Convention. The criterion for assessing these points is different from that which must be followed in deciding the merits of a complaint. The Commission must conduct a prima facieassessment to determine whether the complaint demonstrates an apparent or potential the Inter-American Court has confirmed that military justice is appropriate only for trying soldiers accused of crimes or misdeeds that, by their nature, constitute offenses against legally protected military interests. I-A Court, Durand and Ugartecase, Judgment of August 16, 2000, paragraph 117. 28 I-A Court, Velásquez Rodríguez case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987, Series C Nº 1, para. 91. See also I-A Court, “Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Articles 27(2), 25 and 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987, Series A Nº 9, para. 24 9