on October 28, 2008. They also claim that the offender has never been captured and continues to threaten the alleged victim through telephone calls. Finally, they submit that there is an unwarranted delay of justice, given that the accused has yet to be criminally sanctioned after over fourteen years of proceedings. 6. The State asserts that the petition is inadmissible given that domestic remedies have not been exhausted. In this regard, it says that the criminal proceedings against the assailant of the alleged victim have not yet concluded and that there are other remedies that can be lodged during the remaining stages of the proceedings until a final judgment is entered against the accused. Likewise, the State argues that on October 28, 2008, the defendant was declared to be in default and proceedings were therefore suspended and an arrest warrant was issued against him. It claims that in complying with the said warrant, the Third Court of Cochabamba took measures to arrest the accused and on February 28, 2014, the Prosecutor’s Office requested INTERPOL Bolivia, in cooperation with INTERPOL Colombia, to issue a report describing the measures taken to arrest the defendant. 7. Furthermore, it asserts that in the framework of the criminal proceedings, the rights of each party have been safeguarded in accordance with domestic and international norms. Concerning the alleged violations of the rights enshrined in the Convention, it submits that after assessing the facts denounced, the competent authorities intervened according to their functions and competencies. Likewise, it claims that for several years now, the State has a policy on the protection of children and adolescents, and on the prevention of family violence. The State asserts that it has developed extensive legislation and issued administrative provisions to safeguard the rights of women, children and adolescents. VI. EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES AND TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION 8. The petitioners submit that the alleged victim filed a criminal complaint as a suitable domestic remedy. However, they claim the State is responsible for an unwarranted delay of justice in protecting her rights, since after over fourteen years the criminal proceedings have not yet finished and the offender has fled and remains at large and unpunished. In turn, the State submits that domestic remedies have not been exhausted inasmuch as a final judgment from the criminal proceedings has not yet been issued; consequently, there are procedural stages pending. 9. The Commission notes that the alleged acts of sexual violence against the alleged victim were reported to the Bolivian authorities in July 2002; nevertheless, to this date no criminal conviction has been entered against the person allegedly responsible. Moreover, from the information submitted by each party, the IACHR notes that given that the accused fled, the Bolivian judicial authorities declared him to be in default on October 28, 2008, but that it was not until February 28, 2014 that the Prosecutor’s Office requested INTERPOL Bolivia to report the actions taken to apprehend him. Therefore, in view of the characteristics of this case, the Commission believes that the exception to the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies set forth in Article 46.2(c) of the American Convention applies to the present case. At the same time, the Commission considers that the petition was filed in a reasonable time; thus, the admissibility requirement of timeliness is met. VII. COLORABLE CLAIM 10. In view of the elements of fact and law presented by each party and given the nature of the matter brought to its attention, the Commission finds that, if proved, the alleged acts of revictimization and the lack of effective judicial protection of the alleged victim during the criminal investigation proceedings opened as a result of the sexual assault suffered at age sixteen, could tend to establish violations of Articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), 11 (Right to Privacy), 19 (Rights of the Child), 24 (Right to Equal Protection) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in connection with Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof, to the detriment of the alleged victim; as well as a violation of Article 7 of the Belém do Pará Convention. 3