Accordingly, the Commission finds that the State has caused unwarranted delay in providing the victims with an effective remedy, that is, to investigate ex officio the incidents that were reported to it. Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds that the exception set forth under Article 46.2.c of the American Convention is applicable to this claim. 3. Alleged violations of the right to a fair trial and judicial protection throughout their criminal proceedings 43. As to the alleged due process violations in the context of the criminal proceedings, the Commission deems that the remedies that must be exhausted are those that enable the alleged victim to expose the alleged violations of the right to a fair trial during the proceedings. These mechanisms include ordinary recourse against particular judgments that are issued in the course of said proceedings. 44. In the instant case, Mr. Eusebio Domingo Revelles appealed the order to institute trial proceedings. The Commission notes that in the ruling on said appeal, it was noted that Mr. Eusebio Domingo Revelles’s declaration before the judge contradicted his initial statement in the proceedings (before the police). According to the claims of the petitioner, it was precisely in their initial statements before a judge that the alleged victims exposed the physical and psychological coercion they were subjected to in order to get them to sign a pre-indictment confession. Consequently, the Commission finds that, as a result of this appeal, the State became aware of the alleged violations of their fair trial rights stemming from the use of this evidence and, therefore, it was able to remedy the consequences it had on the proceedings. 45. The Commission further notes that the Judgment of the Second Court for Criminal Matters of Pichincha, which found Mr. Eusebio Domingo Revelles criminally responsible, was required by law to be reviewed, that is, mandatorily subject to a “consultation” by the Superior Court of Justice. Based on a reading of said review Judgment, it is evident that the Fourth Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice decided that “in this proceeding, the formal requirements of substance inherent to this type of trial have been observed and, therefore, the validity of the case proceeding declared by the Criminal Court is upheld.” It also noted that “through the introduction of prima facie evidence during the initial investigation stage, the material existence of the crime under inquiry has been proven” and it decided “with the Chamber being absolutely certain that the defendant is criminally responsible.” 11 Therefore, in view of the fact that there was a ruling on the validity of the proceeding, the Commission deems that by means of the review or “consultation,” the Superior Court of Justice had the opportunity to remedy the alleged due process violations in the case of Mr. Eusebio Domingo Revelles. 46. As for the remedies listed by the State, the Commission recalls that the Court has denied objections of failure to exhaust domestic remedies on “lack of arguments regarding the availability, suitability and effectiveness” 12 of the remedies that the State claims should have been exhausted. 47. In the instant case, while the State did mention the petition for writ of reversal of judgment on cassation, arguing that such remedies were suitable and effective, it did not provide any information that would prove it so, and instead only provided a verbatim transcription of Article 385 from the Code of Criminal Procedure as an example of one of the remedies, the motion for review of judgment. 13 As for the writ of reversal on cassation, the Commission recalls that even though in some instances special remedies of a discretionary nature may be tailored to address human rights violations, as a general standard in these types 11Annex 1. Superior Court of Justice, Fourth Chamber, Judgment of November 24, 1998. Annex to petitioner’s communication received on April 19, 1999. 12 IA Court of HR, Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207. Para. 23. 13The State noted “Article 385. The motion for review of any judgment of conviction shall be admissible, and shall be filed before the Supreme Court of Justice in the following instances …”. 8