to a situation in which international proceedings for assistance to the victims are detained or delayed to the point of futility. 6 30. In conclusion, given the characteristics and context of this petition, the Commission considers that the exception stipulated in Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention is applicable, in view of the meager prospects that available remedies would be effective. Consequently, the requirements pertaining to exhaustion of domestic remedies stipulated in the American Convention are not applicable. 31. Finally, application of the exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies stipulated in Article 46(2) of the Convention is closely linked to determination of possible violations of certain rights enshrined in it, such as guarantees of access to justice. However Article 46(2), by its nature and purpose, is a rule whose content is independent of the substantive provisions of the Convention. Therefore, a determination as to whether the exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies stipulated in that Article are applicable to the case in point should be made prior to and independently of an examination of the merits of the case, since it relies on a different standard of evaluation than the one used to determine whether or not there was a violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. It should be noted that the causes and effects that prevented exhaustion of domestic remedies in this case will be analyzed in the report adopted by the Commission on the merits of the case, with a view to determining whether they in fact represent violations of the American Convention. 2. Time for submitting the petition 32. The IACHR has established supra that in the present case, the requirement stipulated in Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention is not applicable. However, the conventional requirements of exhaustion of domestic remedies and presentation within the period of six months of the decision indicating such exhaustion are independent. Therefore, the Commission must determine whether the petition under consideration was presented within a reasonable period of time of the date on which the actual events comprising the present case occurred. In this regard, it is important to note that the events alleged by the petitioner related the right to life, to human treatment, and to liberty of Oscar Tabares Toro took place on December 28, 1997, and the original petition was received on November 18, 2002. Consequently, the Commission considers that the period elapsed was reasonable in view of the circumstances of this petition. 3. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 33. The case files of the petition do not contain any information that could lead one to conclude that this matter is pending settlement in another international proceeding or that it has been previously decided by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Therefore, the IACHR concludes that the requirement stipulated in Article 46(1)(c) of the American Convention has been met. 4. Characterization of the alleged facts 34. The Commission is of the opinion that the allegations of the petitioners regarding the presumed violation of the right to life, to humane treatment, and to 6 Inter-American Court, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987 paragraph 93.