domestic remedies be exhausted is independent from the provision requiring that the petition be lodged within six months from the date on which the party alleging violation of his rights was notified of the final judgment within the domestic system. 28. This consideration aside, the Commission must still determine whether the petition in this case was lodged within a reasonable period, in accordance with Article 32 of its Rules of Procedure. It bears noting that the petition itself asserts that the alleged victim’s next of kin have been unable to obtain justice because of the excessive and unwarranted delays in the justice system. As previously noted, the punishable offense took place on May 19, 1997. While it is true that an investigation of the case was undertaken and that events occurred in the course of that inquiry that might reasonably explain the delay, such as the nullification of proceedings and the rescheduling of the trial of the defendant in the case, it is also true that as of the date on which this case is being examined, 9 (nine) years have passed since the events in question occurred. The State has taken too long to solve this case. In a previous case, the Commission held that since the time of the events, “sluggishness and lack of results in th[e] investigation constitute[d] an obvious case of unjustified delay in the administration of justice that, in fact, impl[ied] a denial of same ….” 4 Thus, the question of whether a petition is lodged within the six months from the date on which the remedies under domestic law were exhausted may depend upon how effective and efficient those remedies are in producing results for the alleged victims. Hence, the decision as to whether the time period established in Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention is exigible in this case must also be deferred until the examination of the merits. 4. judicata Duplication of international proceedings and res 29. Nothing in the file of this petition suggests that the subject matter of the petition is pending decision in another international proceeding for settlement, or that it replicates a petition already decided by the Inter-American Commission. The Commission therefore concludes that the requirements established in Articles 46.1.c and 47.d of the Convention have been met. 5. Characterization of the facts alleged 30. For admissibility purposes, the IACHR has to decide whether the allegations state facts that tend to establish a violation of 4 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Resolution No. 17/87, Case 9425, Peru, March 28, 1987, in Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 1986-1987, p. 127, Consideranda 6 8