51. As for the alleged irregularities of the criminal proceeding that was held against the alleged victim, it appears from the record that Raúl José Díaz Peña waived his right to appeal the conviction, formally published on June 17, 2008, as he considers that such an appeal would be illusory, and so as to not cause further delay in the criminal proceeding, and so as to thereby be able to opt for one of the benefits of serving the sentence. In that sense, the Commission observes that as regards the claim for violations of due process, in keeping with the right to judicial protection, the alleged victim was able to appeal the conviction, a remedy he decided to waive of his own will. Accordingly, the Commission considers that for these facts domestic remedies have not been exhausted, and that given the failure to meet the requirement, the exceptions provided for in Article 46(2) of the American Convention would not apply. 52. Article 46(1)(a), given its nature and purpose, is a provision whose content is autonomous vis-à-vis the substantive provisions of the Convention. Therefore, the determination on exhaustion of the domestic remedies applicable to the case in question should be made prior to and separate from the analysis of the merits, since it depends on a different standard of appreciation from that used to determine the possible violation of Article 8 of the American Convention. It should be noted that the causes and effects of the exhaustion of judicial remedies to which reference has been made will be analyzed in the report the Commission adopts on the merits, in order to determine whether there have been violations of the American Convention. 2. Time for submitting the petition 53. Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention establishes that for the petition to be declared admissible, it must have been submitted within six months of the date on which the interested person was notified of the final decision that exhausted domestic remedies. This rule does not apply when the Commission finds that one of the exceptions to the prior exhaustion requirement provided for in Article 46(2) of the Convention applies. In those cases, the Commission must determine whether the petition was submitted in a reasonable time, as required by Article 32 of its Rules of Procedure. 54. When submitting the petition, the petitioner asked the Commission to apply the exceptions to the prior exhaustion requirement provided for at Article 46(2) of the Convention, considering the “legal situation of the alleged victim.” During the processing of the petition, the defense of Mr. Díaz Peña pursued several remedies including the amparo (seesupra IV.B.1 Exhaustion of domestic remedies). Thus, in consideration of what is established in the previous section (see supra IV.B.1 Exhaustion of domestic remedies) the decision of theamparo remedy that exhausted domestic remedies was declared inadmissible on appeal on May 11, 2007, and considering that the petition was filed on October 12, 2005, the Commission considers that the petition was filed in timely fashion. 3. Duplication of procedure and international res judicata 55. It does not appear from the record that the subject matter of the petition is pending any other international procedure for settlement, or that it reproduces a petition already examined by this or any other international body. Therefore, the requirements established at Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention are satisfied. 4. Characterization of the alleged facts 56.In view of the elements of fact and law raised by the parties, and the nature of the matter put before it, the IACHR considers that the petitioner’s allegations concerning preventive detention and the alleged victim’s conditions of detention could constitute possible violations of the rights to humane treatment, personal liberty, fair trial, and judicial protection provided for at Articles 5, 7, 8, and 25 of the American Convention in relation to the general obligations established in Article 1(1) of the same treaty. 57. In addition, given the factual elements of this petition, and in application of the principle of iura novit curia, the Commission should establish the possible responsibility of the State for the 14