41. In this case, the Commission finds that the exceptions set forth in Article 46(2) apply insofar as the petitioners have been denied access to the remedies under domestic law and were then prevented from exhausting them, by means of the suspension of the proceedings against the resident physician, since he is a fugitive from justice, and by means of the statute of limitations, as regards the attending physician. In addition, the fact that these proceedings have taken almost ten years without the rendering of a final judgment qualifies as an unwarranted delay. As a consequence the Commission is of the view that the petition was presented within a reasonable time. c. Duplication of Proceedings and Res Judicata 42. The Commission understands that the substance of the petition is not pending in any other international proceeding for settlement, and that it is not substantially the same as any petition previously studied by the Commission or other international body. Hence, the requirements set forth in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention have also been met. d. Characterization of the Alleged Facts 43. The State argues that international responsibility cannot be attributed to Ecuador for a crime that was not committed by agents of the State. Instead it argues that two physicians who worked in a private hospital committed the malpractice alleged in this case. The Commission notes that Ecuadorian penal law criminalizes the acts described in this complaint as “intentional homicide”, irrespective of whether they are committed in a public or private hospital. As a consequence, the State has an obvious interest in the investigation, trial and punishment of the perpetrators of such acts. The fact that these events occurred in a private hospital does not remove the attribution of international responsibility. The Commission holds that the petitioner’s claims describe events that, if proven true, could tend to establish a violation of the rights protected by Articles 1, 8, and 25 of the American Convention. V. CONCLUSION 44. Based on the above legal and factual considerations, the Commission concludes that the case at hand satisfies the admissibility requirements set forth in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention and, without prejudging the merits of the case, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, DECIDES: 1. To declare this case admissible with respect to Articles 1, 8 and 25 of the American Convention. 2. To transmit this report to the petitioner and to the State. 3. To continue with its analysis of the merits of the case. 4. To publish this report and to include it in the Commission’s Annual Report to the General Assembly of the OAS. Done and signed at the headquarters of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, in the city of Washington, D.C., on the 23rd day of October, 2002. (Signed): Juan Méndez, President; Marta Altolaguirre, First Vice-President; José Zalaquett, Second Vice-President; Commissioners Robert K. Goldman, Clare Roberts, and Susana Villaran. 7