jurisdiction does not provide adequate means to prosecute and punish human rights violations of the nature alleged in this case nor redress their consequences. The contentiousadministrative jurisdiction, moreover, is a mechanism destined to supervise the State’s administrative activity, and which allows only for compensation for damages caused by abuse of authority. Accordingly, in a case such as this, it is not necessary to exhaust these remedies prior to recurring to the Inter-American system. 24. Nor is it required in a case such as this to comply with the six-month period provided for in Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention, as the petition was submitted within the reasonable period of time referred to in Article 32(2) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, for those cases in which no final judgment has been issued prior to submission of the petition. 25. Finally, the Commission must indicate that the application of the exceptions to the prior exhaustion rule, provided for at Article 46(2) of the Convention is closely linked to the determination of the alleged violations of substantive rights set forth in the Convention, such as the guarantees of access to justice. Nonetheless Article 46(2), by its nature and purpose, is autonomous from the substantive provisions of the Convention. Accordingly, the determination as to whether the exceptions to the prior exhaustion of remedies rule apply to the case in question must precede the analysis of the merits, for it rests upon a separate standard of appreciation from that employed to determine whether Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention have been violated. It should be clarified that the causes and the effects that prevented the exhaustion of domestic remedies in this case will be analyzed in due course in the Report on the merits where the IACHR shall determine whether they actually constitute violations of the American Convention. 2. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 26. It does not appear from the record that the subject matter of the petition is pending before another international procedure, or that it reproduces a petition already examined by this or any other international body. Accordingly, the requirements established in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention have been met. 3. Characterization of the facts alleged 27. The Commission considers that the petitioners’ allegations regarding the alleged violation of the rights to life, humane treatment, personal liberty, and the judicial protection of the victims and their family members, if true, tend to establish a violation of the rights guaranteed at Articles 4, 5, 8, 21, and 25, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention. The IACHR notes that the petitioners have failed to sustain with arguments of fact and of law their claim regarding the alleged violation of Article 7 and therefore it cannot be admitted at this time. 28. Moreover, in view of the allegations that 15 of the victims were children, the Commission will consider, in the merits phase, whether it must also examine the international obligations of the State in light of possible violations of Article 19 of the American Convention. V. CONCLUSIONS 29. The Commission concludes that the case is admissible and that it is competent to examine the claim submitted by the petitioners on the alleged violation of Articles 4, 5, 8, 21, and 25, in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention, in keeping with the requirements established at Articles 46 and 47 thereof. 30. Based on the arguments of fact and law set forth above, and without prejudging the merits, 5