Court of Justice of the Province of Salta. The Commission has no set rules over what constitutes "unwarranted delay", but rather evaluates the circumstances of each case to determine whether there has been unwarranted delay.16 In the present case, bearing in mind that the petitioners filed a motion for constitutional protection in 2000 that is still pending, and given the circumstances set forth above, the Commission concludes that, without prejudging its future determination on the merits of the case, there has been an unwarranted delay in issuing a final judgment, within the meaning of Article 46.2 (c). As to the question of prejudgment, it is important to recall that: the invocation of exceptions to the requirements of Article 46 is closely linked to the examination of the substance of possible violations of rights enshrined therein, particularly the guarantees relative to access to justice. Nonetheless, given its nature and purpose, the review under Article 46.2 is autonomous vis-à-vis the substantive norms of the Convention. The determination as to whether the exceptions to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies apply in a given case requires an analysis of the claims raised in advance of and apart from the determination of the merits of the case, and according to a standard distinct from the one used to determine whether the State bears responsibility for the violation of the rights to judicial protection or guarantees set forth in the Convention. The causes that have impeded the exhaustion of domestic remedies, and the consequences thereof, shall be analyzed to the extent appropriate when the Commission examines the merits of this case.17 82. Because the events of this case are covered by the rule of "unwarranted delay" of Article 46.2.c, the petitioners are excused from fulfilling the requirement of Article 46.1.a on the exhaustion of domestic remedies. The Commission sees no reason to consider the other remedies invoked by the State, because it has determined that there was unwarranted delay in issuing a final judgment with respect to a suitable remedy for protecting the rights under examination in this petition. 2. Timeliness of the petition 16 IACHR, Report Nº 16/02, Marco Antonio Servellón García et al. (Honduras), Petition 12.331, Admissibility, para. 31, February 27, 2002. 17 IACHR, Report Nº 03/03, Carlos Saúl Menem (Son), Argentina, Petition 12.257, Admissibility, para. 36, February 20, 2003.