31. In the instant case, the Commission notes that the criminal enquiry into the events of May 17, 2004, at San Pedro Sula Prison, which cost 107 persons their lives, remains at a preliminary stage and the State has not supplied information on concrete steps or procedures meant to determine whether or not public officials bear responsibility for the events described in the petition.17 The Commission also finds that the State did not explain any specially complex factors, given that this case concerns circumstances in which the identities of the government officials under whose protection the inmates found themselves was known. Furthermore, the Commission has held that when a publicly actionable offense is committed, the State has the obligation to institute criminal proceedings and pursue them to the end. 18 32. Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds that at the date of adoption of the instant report, the length of time that the State has taken to conduct the relevant investigations constitutes an unwarranted delay of justice. 33. Finally, the Commission considers that it is important to clarify that the exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies are closely connected to the determination of possible violations of certain rights contained in the Convention, such as the right to a fair trial (Article 8) and the right to judicial protection (Article 25). It should be borne in mind, however, that Article 46 (2), by its nature and purpose, has a content that is independent of the substantive norms of the Convention and depends on a standard of evaluation different from the one used to determine the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of this international instrument. Because of this, the applicability of the exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies provided for in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of Article 46(2) must be decided, specifically and at the outset, just as the Commission is doing now in this report. Therefore, the reasons for which domestic remedies were not exhausted and the legal effect of their lack of exhaustion will be analyzed when the Commission examines the merits of the issue, with the purpose of determining whether violations of Articles 8 and 25 have taken place.19 34. In light of the foregoing and of the information contained in the record, for the purposes of admissibility the Inter-American Commission finds that there has been an unwarranted delay on the part of the courts in rendering a final judgment and that domestic remedies have proved ineffective at providing a prompt solution to the situation charged in the petition. Accordingly, in the instant case the IACHR applies the exception to the rule of prior exhaustion of the remedies under domestic law provided at Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention. 2. Timeliness of the petition 35. According to Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention, for a petition to be admissible it 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.” A final judgment has not yet been adopted in this case and, therefore, the six-month time period for the lodging of a petition after the notification of said judgment has not begun to run. The Commission finds that, considering the facts complained of, the level of progress in the investigations and the date it was lodged, that the complaint was lodged within a reasonable time since the date on which the victims’ rights were allegedly violated. Therefore, the requirement regarding timeliness has been met in accordance with Article 32 of the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR. 3. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata Venezuela, February 28, 2007, para. 30, and IACHR, Report 10/05, Petition 380-03, Admissibility, Rafael Ignacio Cuesta Caputi, Ecuador, February 23, 2005, para. 48. 17 The scant progress made by the State in its investigations is set down for the record in the Report of the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Human Rights of March 5, 2008. Attached to the communication of the State of March 5, 2008. 18 Report 14/08, Petition 652-04, Admissibility, Hugo Humberto Ruiz Fuentes, Guatemala, March 5, 2008, para. 64, and IACHR, Report 62/00, Case 11.727, Hernando Osorio Correa, Colombia, October 3, 2000, para. 24 19 IACHR, Report 14/05 Petition 3101-02, Admissibility, Oscar Daniel Medina Cortés et al., Honduras, February 23, 2005, para. 28; IACHR, Report 15/02, Admissibility, Petition 11.802, Ramón Hernández Berrios et al., Honduras, February 27, 2002, and IACHR, Report 65/01, Case 11.073, Juan Humberto Sánchez, Honduras, March 6, 2001, para. 51. 7