25. Article 46.1.b of the Convention states that a petition must be lodged within six months from the date when the person whose rights are alleged to have been infringed is notified of the final judgment. 26. The Commission concludes that in the present case there has been an unwarranted procedural delay on the part of the Honduran authorities in solving this case, sufficient to satisfy this requirement. Article 32(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR states in this respect: In those cases in which the exceptions to the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies are applicable, the petition shall be presented within a reasonable period of time, as determined by the Commission. For this purpose, the Commission shall consider the date on which the alleged violation of rights occurred and the circumstances of each case. 27. The petition was received on January 13, 2003 and the events that gave rise to this proceeding occurred from May 18, 1998 with the murder of Mr. Luna López, and the issuing of arrest warrants on February 21, 2001. Therefore the Commission concludes, based on what has been stated supra, that the petition was presented within a reasonable time. 3. Duplication of procedures and res judicata 28. The file concerning the petition contains no information that would suggest that this subject is currently pending in another international proceeding, or that it reproduces a petition that has already been brought before this or another international organ. Therefore, the IACHR concludes that it has met the provisions laid down in Articles 46.1.c and 47.d of the American Convention. 4. Description of the alleged facts 29. The Commission considers that the allegations made by the petitioner with regard to the alleged violation of judicial guarantees and protection due to the victim, if proven, would amount to a violation of the rights guaranteed by Articles 4, 5.1, 5.2, 8.1, and 25.1 in accordance with Article 1.1 of the American Convention. V. CONCLUSIONS 30. The Commission concludes that the case is admissible and that it has competence to examine the complaint lodged by the petitioners in connection with the alleged violation of Articles 4, 5(1), 8(1), and 25(1) in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the American Convention, pursuant to Articles 46(1)(c) and d., 46(2)(c) and 47(b) of the same Convention. 31. Based on the foregoing considerations of fact and law, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, DECIDES: 1. To declare this petition admissible, in relation to Articles 1(1), 4, 5(1), 5(2), 8(1), and 25(1) of the American Convention. 2. To give notice of this decision to the petitioner and to the State. 3. To begin an analysis of the merits of the case. 4. To publish this decision and include it in its Annual Report to the General Assembly of the OAS. Done and signed at the headquarters of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, in Washington, D.C., on October 13th, 2004. (Signed): José Zalaquett, President; Clare K 5