12 Arguments of the Commission 46. Regarding the alleged non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Commission contended that: a) the State did not reply to reiterated requests from the Commission for information and never challenged the admissibility of the claims during the appropriate procedural opportunity. Thus, Suriname tacitly waived its right to object to noncompliance with such requirements as exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 46 of the Convention, and is now estopped from objecting in this regard; b) the Commission expressly informed the State that its failure to respond to its requests for information would permit the Commission to presume, pursuant to Article 42 of its then-applicable Rules of Procedure, that the denounced facts were true, in the absence of evidence to the contrary; c) in its Admissibility Report No. 26/00, the Commission considered the State’s silence to be an implicit waiver of its right to argue non-exhaustion of domestic remedies; d) the requirement that claimants exhaust domestic remedies is not to impose unjustified procedural obstacles, but rather to ensure that the State has been made aware of the claims prior to being summoned before an international mechanism of supervision. When it is not possible for claimants to exhaust such remedies as a matter of fact or law, the requirement is “consequently and necessarily excused”; e) a civil action for damages might be appropriate for a private or civil wrong between two parties, or in certain cases for the breach of a noncontractual obligation by the State, but it does not represent an adequate and effective remedy in response to actions that may constitute serious crimes under Suriname’s domestic law; f) the remedy suitable to address the rights violations in the present case is a criminal investigation devised to identify, prosecute and punish those responsible. Such crimes are subject to ex officio prosecution; g) the remedies that should have been provided by the State through its criminal justice system have been affected by “evident undue delay”; h) by the time the application was submitted to the Court, more than 16 years had passed since the events that gave rise to the present case, and no one had been prosecuted or punished for the human rights violations. In this way, the victims have been denied effective judicial protection and guarantees; and i) the delay and denial of justice in this case provide the application’s very basis: “[t]he case itself demonstrates that domestic remedies have been neither available nor effective for the residents of Moiwana Village.”