40. Therefore, the Commission considers that the proceeding before the criminal courts in the police jurisdiction did not constitute prima facie a suitable remedy for investigating facts such as those alleged in the instant matter, and, therefore, the exception contained in Article 46(2)(a) of the Convention applies. Without prejudice to the foregoing, as of the date of this pronouncement on admissibility the Commission notes that the parties have reported that the criminal proceeding in the police jurisdiction is definitively concluded in the domestic jurisdiction. In that sense, and although one could not demand of the family members of the alleged victim that they exhaust a remedy that was not suitable or effective, the Commission considers that as there is a final judicial decision on the facts of the case, one must consider that the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies has been met. 41. As for the argument of the State regarding the failure to file an appeal against the recusal by the judge, the Commission notes that the petition incorporates multiple arguments that are not limited to the application of the police jurisdiction. In effect, the petition is focused on the alleged arbitrary deprivation of the right to life and on the alleged lack of an effective judicial response by the State. In that regard, and as already explained in this section, the criminal proceeding as a whole, driven by the State sua sponte, was the suitable means of responding fully to the facts alleged in the petition. In any event, the Commission considers that the State did not explain how an eventual appeal would have been effective for challenging the use of a jurisdiction which according to the State was the one that should have been applied according to its own provisions in force at the time. 2. Time for filing a petition with the Commission 42. Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention establishes that in order for a petition to be declared admissible it must be presented within six months counted from the date on which the interested person was notified of the final decision that exhausted remedies in the domestic jurisdiction. 43. In the instant matter, the Commission considered that the domestic jurisdiction was exhausted by the judgment of March 5, 1997, issued by the First District Court of the National Police, that is, subsequent to the filing of the petition. In that regard, and taking into account that the analysis of the requirements established in Articles 46 and 47 of the Convention must be performed in light of the prevailing situation at the moment it rules on the admissibility of the case 6, the Commission considers that the requirement at Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention referring to the time for submission is intrinsically tied to the exhaustion of domestic remedies and, therefore, should also be considered satisfied. 3. Duplication of procedure and res iudicata 44. Article 46(1)(c) of the Convention provides that the admission of a petition is subject to the requirement that the matter “is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement” and Article 47(d) of the Convention stipulates that the Commission will not admit a petition that substantially reproduces a petition or communication already examined by the Commission or by another international organization. The parties have not shown the existence of either of those two circumstances, nor can they be deduced from the record. 4. Characterization of the facts alleged 45. For purposes of admissibility, the Commission must decide whether the petition states facts that tend to establish a violation, as stipulated in Article 47(b) of the American Convention, whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or whether it is "obviously out of order,” as per Article 47(c). The standard of appreciation of these measures is different from that required to decide on the merits of a 6 IACHR, Report No. 24/07, Petition 661-03, Admissibility, Liakat Ali Alibux, Suriname, March 9, 2007; IACHR, Report No. 67/11, Case 11,157, Admissibility and Merits, Gladys Carol Espinoza Gonzales, Peru, March 31, 2011, para. 44; IACHR, Report No. 108/10, Petition 744-98 and others, Admissibility, Orestes Auberto Urriola Gonzáles et al., Peru, August 26, 2010, para. 54; Report No. 2/08, Petition 506-05, Inadmissibility, José Rodríguez Dañín, Bolivia, March 6, 2008, para. 56; and Report No. 20/05, Petition 716-00, Admissibility, Rafael Correa Díaz, Peru, February 25, 2005, para. 32.