when a petitioner alleges one of these exceptions, the State must demonstrate that domestic remedies have not been exhausted, unless that is clearly evident from the record. 37. In the instant case, the petitioner filed actions challenging the constitutionality of Resolutions 122 and 134, the resolutions which respectively determined the procedure for the impeachment trial and that the Supreme Court Justice should be removed from his post. These constitutionality challenges were filed on November 27, and December 26, 2003, and as of the date of this report, they have not yet be resolved. Furthermore, according to the available information, it is not apparent that there has been any procedural activity in those matters all these years, as the Court to rule on the actions has not yet been established. 38. The petitioner maintains that he attempted to exhaust the applicable remedies by filing actions challenging the constitutionality of the proceedings against him, but that he has received no reply from the domestic legal system. The State affirms that the remedies under domestic law have not been exhausted because suit has not been filed against the senators who ran the impeachment trial to determine their individual liability. The State argues that any liability it may have is subsidiary, because it can only apply once the liability of a State agent is determined in court, and once that public official is judicially declared insolvent. 39. The Commission observes that the legally protected interests alleged to be involved include, among others, the independence of the Judicial Branch, the right to a defense, and due process during impeachment proceedings. These are issues related to the actions of the State as such and, therefore, a constitutionality challenge to be the suitable remedy. The remedies available to establish the individual liability of State agents who participated in the trial could not remediate the procedural or substantive issues brought before the Inter-American Commission, and the Paraguayan State has not demonstrated how these remedies may be suitable to address the situation in the reported complaint. 40. The requirement for the exhaustion of domestic remedies was conceived to favor the State, to allow it the opportunity to resolve matters of potential violations of human rights within its own legal framework. In the instant case, the State had the opportunity to act on the events described in this report when the petitioner filed constitutionality challenges against Resolutions 122 and 134. 41. The Commission notes that approximately five years have lapsed since the petitioner filed actions challenging the constitutionality Resolutions 122 and 134, but to date they have not been resolved. Remedies for which there is an unwarranted delay in rendering a judgment cannot be considered to be either available or effective, and the Commission cannot demand that they be exhausted. Therefore, the Commission finds that the exception to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies set forth in Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention, on unwarranted delay in rendering a judgment, applies to the aforementioned remedies. 2. Time period for lodging a petition 42. According to Article 47(1)(b) of the Convention, a petition must be lodged within six months of the date on which the party alleging violation of his rights was notified of the final judgment in the domestic courts. 43. However, when exceptions to the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies apply, the Commission shall consider the date on which the alleged 8