12 course of the processing of admissibility, it has not reported on any further progress in the investigations and the possible link thereof to the subsequent death of Mrs. Digna Ochoa in the more than ten years that have elapsed since her death occurred and, therefore, said circumstances, solely for purposes of admissibility, would constitute prima facie evidence of unwarranted delay in the investigations into that count of the claim. Moreover, as to the investigation conducted into the death of Mrs. Digna Ochoa, the Commission notes that there is no dispute between the parties that after the denial of the amparo claim brought by the family members, on August 19, 2011, the decision of the Office of the Public Prosecutor to “not bring criminal action” brought to an end the investigation, which had been furthered by the State, at the point in time when the case became res judicata. Taking into account that the investigation into the death of Mrs. Digna Ochoa was brought forward and furthered by the State and that it is closed, the Commission concludes that the prior exhaustion requirement has been met. 53. 54. Regarding the motion to review, as raised by the State, the Commission notes that it is a remedy that would be pursued against the decision denying the amparo claim filed by the family members to challenge the decision to “not bring criminal action” and, therefore, it is of a special or extraordinary nature. Additionally, the effect of this remedy, in the event that they had won, could have been to reopen the investigation. The Inter-American Court has held that even though all criminal investigations must fulfill several legal requirements, the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies must never lead to a halt or delay that would render international action in support of the defenseless victim ineffective. 8 Moreover, the IACHR has held that while in some instances special or extraordinary appeals or remedies are suitable for addressing human rights violations, as a general rule, the only remedies that need be exhausted are those whose function, within the domestic legal system, is appropriate for providing protection to remedy an infringement of given legal right. 9 Taking into consideration that as a general rule of thumb, an investigation into the alleged death of a person must be conducted promptly in order to protect the interests of the victims, preserve the evidence and even safeguard, as the case may be, the rights of everyone in the context of the investigation who may be suspect, the Commission considers that the procedural burden to keep the investigation open should not be shifted to the family members by compelling them to pursue remedies of an extraordinary nature, such as the motion for review, in order to assert their claim. The Commission notes that for the more than 10 years that the investigation has been open, the Office of the Public Prosecutor has had more than sufficient opportunity to investigate and clarify the facts and arrive at a final conclusion and that, additionally, the next-of-kin of Mrs. Ochoa actively took part over the course of the whole investigation challenging both the decision to “not bring criminal action” as well as other decisions of the prosecutorial authorities. Consequently, the motion for review is not a suitable remedy for the purposes of examining the admissibility of the instant case. 55. 56. Accordingly, based on the foregoing explanation and given the profile of the instant case, the Inter-American Commission finds that the remedies provided for by Mexican legislation have been 8 para. 93.. IA/Court of HR, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Preliminary Objections. Judgment June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, IACHR, Report Nº 51/03, case 11.819, Christian Daniel Domínguez Domenchetti (Argentina), October 24, 2003, paragraph 45; IACHR, Report Nº 68/01 Case 12.117, Santos Soto Ramírez et al (Mexico) June 14, 2001, paragraph 14; IACHR, Report Nº 83/01 Case 11.581, Zulema Tarazona Arriate et al (Peru) October 10, 2001, 9