indicated that only those remedies that provide appropriate remedy for the violations that are alleged to have taken place should be exhausted. For the remedies to be adequate means that: “those remedies which are suitable to address an infringement of a legal right. A number of remedies exist in the legal system of every country, but not all are applicable in every circumstance. If a remedy is not adequate in a specific date, it obviously need not be exhausted. A norm is meant to have an effect and should not be interpreted in such a way as to negate its effect or lead to a result that is manifestly absurd or unreasonable. 4 28. The Commission has also indicated that the requirement to exhaust all remedies available under domestic law does not mean that the alleged victims are obliged to exhaust all the remedies at their disposal. As to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Commission has reiterated that if the alleged victim endeavored to resolve the matter by making use of a valid, adequate alternative judicial remedy available in the domestic legal system and the State had an opportunity to remedy the issue within its jurisdiction, the purpose of the international legal precept is fulfilled 5. 29. The IACHR stresses that in determining the admissibility of the petition it must decide whether the petitioners have exhausted the appropriate remedy for resolving the principal situation in question. In other words, the IACHR must determine what was the appropriate and effective remedy for rectifying the alleged situation. 6 In the present case, the State alleges that following the decision of June 19, 2000, which rejected the mandado de segurança, a constitutional appeal should have been lodged. Having studied the domestic judgments and proceedings, the Commission concludes that from the time (that is to say, after June 19, 2000) when the State indicated that the aforementioned remedy was not appropriate for resolving the violation, although it lacked object, the Supreme Court could not order the authorities to cease the acts alleged to infringe the rights of the petitioners. At that time, it was only possible to seek an investigation of the events, and if the case was proved, to apply to those responsible the appropriate sanction. In fact, the Court of Justice of the State of Paraná concluded that the matter would be best dealt with through criminal proceedings, as the Attorney General’s office had envisaged when it said: Opinion to the effect that, since the telephone interception determined through an injunction, which violates a prima facie right of the petitioners, is no longer being carried out and the authority allegedly liable is being investigated for the act by the competent organ, the requests are denied, since the injunction issued and the materials recorded, whose destruction was also requested, must be evaluated in criminal investigation 82516-5, which is under way in the Special Organ of the Court of Justice. 7 30. The Commission finds that as the national courts indicated, the remedy that should have been tried was the criminal action. The alleged victims brought this action, and it was the State’s responsibility to advance and drive it further. For these reasons, the remedy proposed by the State lacked suitability, and consequently it was not necessary to exhaust it. In the light of these considerations, the Commission concludes that the requirement detailed in Article 46.1 of the American Convention had been complied with. 2. Deadline for presentation of petitions 31. Article 46.1 of the Convention states that a petition must be lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the petitioner was notified of the final judgment that remedies available under domestic law had been exhausted. The petitioners lodged their petition on December 26, 2000, claiming that they were within the period of six months in respect of the final judgment of the mandado de segurança, and within a reasonable period in terms of penal actions. Taking into account that the petition was lodged on December 26, 2000, the IACHR considers that it met the requirement stipulated in Article 46.1.b of the Convention. 4 I/A Court of H/R, Velásquez Rodríguez. Judgment July 29, 1988, Series C, No. 4, paragraph 64. 5 IACHR, Report N° 57/03 (Admissibility), petition 12,337, Marcela Andres Valdés Díaz vs. Chile, October 10, 2003, paragraph 40, and IACHR, Report N° 70/04 (Admissibility), petition 667/01, Jesús Manuel Naranjo et al. vs. Venezuela, October 13, 2004, paragraph 52. 6IACHR, Report Nº 57/03 (Inadmissibility), petition P12, 303, Mariblanca Staff Wilson and Oscar E Ceville R, vs. Panamá, October 22, 2003, paragraph 42. 7 Ministerio Público do Estado do Paraná, parecer n.º 002198 del 17 de diciembre de 1999, en el proceso Mandado de segurança criminal n.º 83486-6. 5