25. In keeping with the general principle in evidentiary matters, the Commission has consistently held that a State alleging a failure to exhaust local remedies must indicate what internal remedies remain to be exhausted and must show that they are effective 3. While the State did indicate the remedies by which to challenge the pending court decision, the punishable offense took place more than 9 (nine) years ago. Such remedies are patently ineffective and very likely will mean an unwarranted delay in affording justice to the alleged victims. 26. Lastly, it bears noting that application of the exceptions to the rule requiring exhaustion of domestic remedies, provided for in Article 46.2 of the Convention, is closely linked to the determination of possible violations of certain Convention-protected rights, such as the guarantees of access to justice. However, given its nature and purpose, Article 46.2 stands separate and apart from the Convention’s substantive provisions. Therefore, the determination as to whether the exceptions to the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies apply to the case in point must be done prior to and separate from the analysis of the merits. The determination of whether the exceptions apply relies on a standard of assessment that is different from the standard used to determine possible violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. It is worth noting that the causes and effects that prevented exhaustion of domestic remedies will be examined in the report that the Commission adopts on the merits of the case, to determine whether violations of the American Convention have occurred. The prima facie assessment for admissibility purposes does not constitute a prejudgment of the case. The final determination as to whether violations occurred will come on the heels of an exhaustive analysis. 3. Time frame for lodging a petition 27. In the petition under consideration, the IACHR has concluded that the remedies that the law provided to the petitioners to obtain redress of the rights that they claim were violated have not been sufficiently exhausted. However, it will defer examination of this issue until the phase during which the merits of the case are addressed. Further, the provision of the Convention requiring that Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, and Juan Humberto Sánchez Case. Judgment of June 7, 2003, para. 121. 3 IACHR, Report No. 32/05, petition 642/03, Admissibility, Luis Rolando Cuscul Pivaral et al (persons living with HIV/AIDS), Guatemala, March 7, 2005, paras. 3335; I/A Court H.R., Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community Case. Preliminary Objections, supra note 3, para. 53; Durand and Ugarte Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of May 28, 1999, Series C No. 50, para. 33; and Cantoral Benavides Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 3, 1998, Series C No. 40, para. 31. 7