remedies under domestic law because he can lodge an action for review to have his criminal case considered in the light of new evidence. In this regard, the alleged victim indicates that he has filed three actions for review without obtaining restitution of his rights. It should be noted that the State has not expressly refuted the petitioner’s claim regarding the absence of a remedy against a decision issued by the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of Justice in proceedings against high-level government officials. It has merely indicated that the alleged victim has recourse to the action for review. 31. The Commission notes that the State did not take responsibility for proving the existence and availability of adequate, appropriate, and effective domestic remedies 2 that had not been exhausted by the Petitioner. In this regard, the Commission observes that the action for review cited by the State is an extraordinary remedy invocable against final judgments on specific grounds and therefore cannot be considered an appropriate remedy that ensures review or appeal of a conviction before it becomes final. 3 Therefore, in accordance with Article 42(2)(a) of the American Convention, the rule of exhaustion of remedies under domestic law does not apply because the State did not afford the alleged victim a remedy that could protect the rights allegedly violated. 32. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the IACHR observes that, for the purpose of obtaining review of his conviction and restitution of his rights, the alleged victim attempted unsuccessfully to bring three actions for review in the Supreme Court of Justice. In 2007, the petitioner submitted new evidence in the form of a constitutional judgment voiding some of the investigation proceedings against one of the defendants in the case in which he had been convicted. This request was rejected on the grounds that the constitutional ruling did not declare anyone innocent and only provided for investigations to be initiated in accordance with internal procedures. Subsequently, in 2011, after the aforesaid investigations had ended, the petitioner lodged a second action for review, arguing that the results of those proceedings constituted new evidence. However, the Criminal Section rejected his case because of technical defects without entering into the merits. Lastly, in 2015, the Criminal Section declared a third action for review lodged by the petitioner inadmissible on the grounds that there was no new evidence, and it also instructed him to refrain in the future from filing actions for review of decisions that it had already evaluated. Therefore, in view of the foregoing, the Commission considers that, in lodging the aforesaid actions, the petitioner used the national legal mechanisms available in the absence of appropriate remedies under domestic law. 33. It should be noted that, by its nature and purpose, Article 46(2) operates independently of the other substantive rules of the Convention. Accordingly, a determination should be made as to the applicability of the exception therein to the exhaustion-of-domestic-remedies rule prior to, and separately from, the analysis of the merits, since it relies on a different standard of evaluation than the one used to determine violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention.4 34. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the instant case is covered by the exception to the exhaustion of domestic remedies established in Article 46(2)(a) of the American Convention and Article 31(2)(a) of the Rules of Procedure. 2. Timeliness of the petition 35. According to Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention and Article 32(1) of the Rules of Procedure, to be admitted by the Commission, a petition must have been lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the party alleging violation of his or her rights was notified of the final judgment. In the complaint under consideration, the IACHR has established the applicability of the exception to the exhaustion of domestic remedies contained in Article 46(2)(a) of the American Convention and Article 31(2)(a) of the Rules of Procedure. Under Article 46(2) of the Convention and Article 32(2) of the Rules of Procedure, in cases 2 IACHR, Report No. 34/07, Admissibility, Liakat Ali Alibux, Suriname, March 9, 2007, para. 46; I/A Court H. R., Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Surinam, Judgment of January 30, 2014 (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs); Series C, No. 276; para. 15. 3 IACHR, Report No. 33/14, Case 12.820, Merits, Manfred Amrhein et al, Costa Rica, April 4, 2014; para. 203. IACHR, Report No. 20/14, Petition 1566-07, Report on Admissibility, Communities of the Sipakepense and Mam Mayan People of the Municipalities of Sipacapa and San Miguel Ixtahuacán, Guatemala; April 3, 2014, para. 41. 4 5