29. In view of the Commission’s conclusion that there was an unwarranted delay in the processing of domestic remedies and that the exception provided for in Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention is applicable, it is understood that the final judgment referred to in Article 46(1)(b), has not been handed down. Hence the six month time period for the lodging of a petition after the notification of a final judgment, has not begun to run. Nevertheless, the Commission considers that the petition has been filed within a reasonable time period starting from the date on which the victims’ rights were allegedly violated and that, therefore, pursuant to Article 32 of its Rules of Procedure, the requirement of timeliness of the petition has been satisfied. 3. Duplication of international proceedings and res judicata 30. The Commission finds that there is no evidence in the record indicating that this petition is pending in another international proceeding or that it is substantially the same as one previously examined by it. It has not received any information, either, to indicate the existence of a situation of similar nature. It therefore finds that the requirements established in Articles 46.1 (c) and 47(d) of the convention have been satisfied. 4. Characterization of the alleged facts 31. It is the opinion of the Commission that, prima facie, the facts alleged by the petitioners, should they be proven, could eventually constitute the violation, with prejudice to the alleged victim, of Articles 4 (right to life), 8 (right to a fair trial), and 25 (right to judicial protection), all in connection with Article 1(1) (general obligation to respect rights) of the American Convention. Regarding the possibility that the alleged facts could eventually constitute a violation of Article 4 of the Convention, it is the opinion of the Commission that Article 4, in connection with Article 1(1) of the American Convention, implies a duty of full protection which not only requires that no person should be deprived arbitrarily of his or her life (negative obligation), but that also requires the States to take all appropriate measures to protect and preserve the right to life (positive obligation)10 as part of their duty to ensure full and free exercise of their rights by all persons under their 10 I/A Court H.R., Cfr. Case of Bámaca-Velásquez. Judgment of November 25, 2000, Series C, No. 70, para. 172; and Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.), Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C, No. 63, para. 139. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Judgment of June 7, 2003, para. 110. 10