10 exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law.” The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Court” or “the InterAmerican Court”) and the IACHR have stated repeatedly that “(…) under the generally recognized principles of international law and international practice, the rule which requires the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies is designed for the benefit of the State, for that rule seeks to excuse the State from having to respond to charges before an international body for acts imputed to it, before it has had the opportunity to 11 remedy them by internal means. Nonetheless, the Convention itself stipulates that this provision should not be applied when the domestic remedies cannot be exhausted because they are not available either as a matter of fact or as a matter of law. More specifically, Article 46(2) establishes exceptions to the general principle of exhaustion of domestic remedies, when the domestic legislation of the State concerned does not afford due process of law for the protection of the rights that have allegedly been violated; the party alleging violation of his rights has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law; or there has been an unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment. 38. First, in the case at hand the petitioners have sustained that they have attempted without success to exhaust the resources available under domestic jurisdiction in order to determine the fate of Mr. Iván Eladio Torres. 39. It is evident from the documentation provided by the petitioners that they did, in fact, file a complaint and that a report of a disappearance was taken on October 14, 2003, and a writ of habeas corpus was received on October 27, 2003; both actions remain pending in the investigation stage. The petitioners also claim that they had attempted to report the disappearance of Mr. Iván Eladio Torres several times prior to that and the respective authorities had refused to take their complaints. Moreover, the IACHR has noted that the petitioners have submitted a number of complaints concerning events associated with the disappearance of Mr. Iván Eladio Torres, such as several complaints against police officers, the complaints concerning the rape of Tamara Bolívar, the threats against the Torres family and Walter Mansilla, and the murder of David Alberto Hayes. 40. In the present petition, the Commission observes that, according to the information sent by the petitioners, the writ of habeas corpus has yet to be resolved by the authorities. This is the most appropriate remedy to exhaust in this case as the Court has pointed out since its earliest adversarial cases: “habeas corpus would be the normal means of finding a person presumably detained by the authorities, of ascertaining whether he is legally detained and, given the case, of obtaining his 12 liberty”. 41. The petitioners also stated that the lack of due diligence in the investigations launched to establish the whereabouts of Mr. Iván Eladio Torres impeded their effective access to domestic remedies, and that, despite this, they made an effort to initiate these proceedings and give the State the opportunity to complete its investigation into the whereabouts of Iván Eladio Torres, which has not occurred to date. 10 See Inter-Am Ct HR, Exceptions to the Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies (Arts. 46(1), 46(2)(a) and 46(2)(b) of the American Convention on Human Rights (Advisory Opinion OC-11/90, August 10, 1990, Ser. A Nº 11, para. 17. 11 See Inter-Am Ct HR, In the Matter of Viviana Gallardo et al, Decision of November 13, 1981, Series A N° G 101/81, para. 26. 12 See Inter-Am Ct HR,Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Judgment of July 29, 1988, Ser. C N°4, para. 65.