lodged with the Rural Welfare Institute (IBR). They note that more than eight years have gone by since the proceedings started and that the community has not yet been given its land. That means that the proceedings have still not been settled after more than eight years. 38. Consequently, given the characteristics of this case, the Commission believes that the exception set forth in Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention is applicable and that therefore the requirements of the American Convention regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies do not apply. 2. Timeliness of the Petition 39. According to Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention, the general rule is that a petition must be lodged within a period of six months “from the date on which the party alleging violation of his rights was notified of the final judgment.” Under Article 32(2) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, this deadline shall not apply when exceptions to the prior exhaustion requirement are applicable. In such a situation, the Rules of Procedure stipulate that the petition must be lodged within a reasonable period of time, considering the date on which the alleged violation of rights occurred and the specific circumstances of the case. 40. The Commission notes that more than eight years have gone by since the representatives of the Yakye Axa indigenous community began proceedings to recover their ancestral lands and that, to date, the authorities have not resolved the matter; and that, with the application of the unwarranted delay exception, there has been no final decision under domestic law since exhaustion has been waived; consequently, the IACHR maintains that the petition was lodged within the “reasonable period of time” described by the Convention. 3. Duplication of Proceedings and Res Judicata 41. Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention set forth admissibility requirements whereby the subject of the petition or communication must not be pending in another international proceeding for settlement and must not be substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization. 42. Nothing in the case file indicates that the substance of this petition is pending in any other international settlement proceeding or that it is substantially the same as any other petition already examined by the Commission or other international body. 43. The Commission therefore concludes that the requirements set forth in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention have been met. 4. Characterization of the Alleged Facts 44. Article 47(b) of the Convention provides that any petition that “does not state facts that tend to establish a violation of the rights guaranteed by this Convention” shall be inadmissible. 45. The Commission believes that the petitioners’ allegations, if true, could tend to establish a violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 4 and 25 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof. In addition, the Commission notes that the petitioners have not argued that Articles 21 and 8 were violated. The IACHR believes that it is not necessary for petitions to indicate each and every allegedly violated right. With particular regard to this, and in light of the Court’s recent case law 8 on indigenous property rights, the Commission concludes that the allegations could tend to establish a violation of Articles 21 and 8 of the Convention. 8 “Among indigenous peoples there is a communitarian tradition regarding a communal form of collective property of the land, in the sense that ownership of the land is not centered on an individual but rather on the group and its community. Indigenous groups, by the fact of their very existence, have the right to live freely in their own territory; 7