norms of the Convention. Therefore, the determination of whether exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies are applicable to the case in question should be handled prior to, and separately from, the analysis of the merits of the matter, since it requires a different yardstick from that used to determine the possible violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. It should be clarified that the causes and effects that prevented the exhaustion of domestic remedies will be analyzed in the report adopted by the Commission on the merits of the dispute, in order to determine whether they constitute violations of the American Convention. 36. For the aforementioned reasons, the Commission concludes that in the case sub examine the exception enshrined in Article 46, number 2, letter (c) of the Convention is applicable. 2. Time period for presenting a petition before the Commission 37. With respect to the requirement set forth in Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention, which states that the petition must be presented within six months from the date of notification of the final judgment resulting in the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Commission considers that this time period cannot be required since the petition was presented within the reasonable time period stipulated in Article 32(2) of its Rules of Procedure for cases in which a final judgment has not been issued prior to lodging the petition.9 In this sense, the Commission takes into account the evolution of the legal proceedings in this case in the internal venue and concludes that it was presented within a reasonable time period. 3. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 38. The State requested that the case be declared inadmissible, arguing the failure to fulfill the requirements set forth in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention relating to the duplication of procedures in the international sphere. It claimed to have received a note from the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions in 1999. The petitioners did not make any reference in this regard. 39. The Commission considers that according to Article 33(2)(a) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, it shall not refrain from considering a petition when the procedure followed before the other organism is limited to a general examination of the human rights situation in the State in question and there has been no decision on the specific facts that are the subject of the petition before the Commission, or it will not lead to an effective settlement. 40. In the case at hand, both the origin and content of the mandate of the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights, as well as the nature of its proceedings, are different from those of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions. 41. The mandate of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions was established by virtue of Resolution 1982/35 of the United Nations Economic and Social Council. The mandate of the Inter-American Commission 9 IACHR, Report 14/04 Admissibility. Peru. Case 11.568, Luis Antonio Galindo Cárdenas. February 27, 2004, para. 47.