petition for a writ of habeas corpus before an administrative authority does not constitute in principle an effective remedy under the standards of the American Convention 6 and, therefore, the Commission finds that it is not required to be exhausted.7 38. Therefore, for the purposes of admissibility of this claim, the Commission finds that the remedy of habeas corpus argued by the State does not constitute prima facie an effective remedy to protect the rights of the alleged victims and, therefore, the exception provided for in Article 46.2.a of the Convention is applicable. 39. Without prejudice to the foregoing, with regard to Eusebio Domingo Revelles, the remedy of hábeas corpus was filed with the Office of the Mayor and, subsequently, the decision was appealed before the Constitutional Court, which upheld the denial of the petition for the writ. Therefore, though Mr. Eusebio Domingo Revelles was not obligated to exhaust it, in his case, the Commission deems this claim of the petition does meet the requirements set forth in Article 46.1 of the Convention. 2. Purported torture, beating and mistreatment of the four alleged victims by Interpol agents of Pichincha and purported failure to investigate 40. In cases in which violations of humane treatment are alleged, the Inter-American Court and the Commission have consistently affirmed that the adequate mechanism to investigate, and when appropriate, punish those responsible and provide reparation to the family members of the victims, when the perpetrators are agents of the State, is a criminal investigation, which should be opened ex officio by the State and undertaken with due diligence in order to be deemed effective. 8 The Commission reemphasizes that in cases in which there is evidence or probable cause to believe that acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment have been committed, it is the duty of the State to open the criminal investigation on its own initiative sua sponte, and the State may not use as an excuse that the victims failed to provide the appropriate evidence.9 41. In the instant matter, even though the State argued that the alleged torture or abuses were not perpetrated by police officials, it has not disputed the fact that the allegations of physical and psychological coercion inflicted upon the alleged victims -during their pre-indictment declarations- were made in their initial statements before the judge in the preliminary investigation and the alleged injuries are mentioned in medical reports, which were seen by several different State authorities.10 The initial statements before the judge did not trigger any response from the judicial authorities overseeing the case. Even in the appeal filed by Mr. Domingo Revelles to prevent the trial proceedings from being instituted, the judicial authority responded that the appellant was merely seeking “to evade his responsibility.” 42. Based on the evidence in the case file, 20 years after the judicial authorities in the criminal proceeding have learned of these claims, the State has not opened the pertinent criminal investigation. 6 IA Court of HR, Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. Judgment November 21, 2007. Series C No. 114, para. 128. 7 IACHR, Report No. 91/13, P-910-07, Admissibility, Daria Olinda Puertocarrero Hurtado, Ecuador, November 4, 2013, para.30. See as example: IA Court of HR, Case of Ximenes Lopes. Judgment July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, para. 148; Case of Baldeón García, Judgment April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, paras. 92 and 93; IACHR, Report Nº 14/04, Case 11.568, Luís Antonio Malando Cardanas (Peru), February 27, 2004, para. 41; IACHR, Report Nº 24/04, Petition 723/01, Tirso Román Valenzuela Ávila (Guatemala), February 26, 2004, paras. 30 and 31; IACHR, Case 11.509, Manuel Manríquez (Mexico), Report No. 2/99 February 23, 1999, para. 58. 8 9 IACHR, Petition 40-03, Report No. 84/08 October 30, 2008, para. 59. 10In this regard, see the references to the content of the alleged victims’ initial statements before the judge in Annex *. Final Report of the Twelfth Prosecutor for Criminal Matters of Pichincha, received on November 30, 1995 by the Office of the Clerk of the Tenth Court for Criminal Matters of Pichincha. Annex to the petitioner’s communication of November 13, 1998, as well as in Annex *. Twelfth Court for Criminal Matters of Pichincha, Order instituting of trial proceeding stage, June 14, 1996. Annex to petitioner’s submissions of November 13, 1998. With regard to the medical examination reports, see Annex *. Medical Examination Reports of Messrs. Emmanuel Cano, Luis Alfonso Jaramillo, Eusebio Domingo Revelles and Jorge Eliécer Herrera of August 9, 1994. Annex to petitioner’s communication of October 26, 1994. 7