23. Finally, the Commission has competence ratione materiae, because the petition alleges violations of human rights protected in the American Convention. B. Requirements of admissibility a. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 24. Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention establishes, as a requirement for admitting a petition, that the remedies available under domestic jurisdiction have been exhausted, in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. Article 46(2) of the American Convention establishes that the provision of Article 46(1)(a) shall not apply when: a) the domestic legislation of the State concerned does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right or rights that have allegedly been violated; b) the party alleging violation of his rights has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law or has been prevented from exhausting them; or c) there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. 25. In the current case, the State opposed the exception of inadmissibility in the initial stage of proceedings, because of the failure to exhaust domestic remedies, and declared in its response to the complaint that judicial proceedings consistent with domestic legislation were still underway. 26. The Petitioner, on the other hand, alleges that there has been excessive and unjustified delay in handling criminal proceedings against the victim, and that serious irregularities have been committed during the process. 27. The Commission has indicated as a general rule that a criminal investigation must be conducted promptly in order to protect the interests of the victims, preserve evidence and safeguard the rights of any person who might be considered a suspect in the course of the investigation.9 The Commission appreciates that the Court of Appeals of La Ceiba has overturned the conviction because of procedural irregularities. Nevertheless, it notes that, although 56 months have passed since the investigation began, it is still at the initial indictment stage, and the accused remain in preventive custody, which constitutes clear evidence of delay and little regard for the effectiveness of those remedies, for purposes of the requirement established in Article 46(2) of the American Convention. As the Inter-American Court has indicated, while any criminal investigation must comply with a series of legal requirements, the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies does not mean that international intervention on behalf of victims must be delayed until it is useless. 28. Therefore, given the characteristics of the present case, the Commission considers that the exception stipulated in Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention is applicable, and that the requirements of the American Convention with respect to the exhaustion of domestic remedies do not apply. 29. It remains to note that invoking exceptions to the rule of local remedy exhaustion as stipulated in Article 46(2) of the Convention is strictly related to determining possible violations of certain rights enshrined therein, such as the right to a fair trial, personal liberty, equality before the law, and judicial protection. Nevertheless, Article 46(2), because of its very nature, is a standard that must prevail independent of the substantive standards of the Convention. Therefore, the determination of whether the exceptions to the rule of local remedy exhaustion stipulated in that role are applicable to the case in question must be made in advance, and separately from the analysis of the substance of the issue, since it depends on a standard of appreciation different from that used in determining violations of Articles 8, 7, 24 and 25 of the Convention. As to the causes and effects that have prevented the exhaustion of domestic remedies in this case, they will be analyzed, as they apply, in the report that the Commission will adopt on the substance of the dispute, in order to determine whether they actually constitute violations of the American Convention. 9 Report Nº 34/01, Case 12.250, Massacre at Mapiripan, Annual Report of the IACHR 2001, paragraph 24. 5