presumption of innocence, adding that there were appeals available to Mr. Montesinos to challenge any alleged irregularity in the proceedings. 17. The State also alleged that the petitioner had not substantiated his allegations of reported violations of freedom from ex post facto laws, protection of honor and dignity, and [equal] protection before the law. IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence, international duplication of proceedings and res judicata Competence ratione personae: Competence ratione loci: Competence ratione temporis: Competence ratione materiae: International duplication of proceedings and res judicata: B. Yes Yes Yes Yes No Exhaustion of domestic remedies and timeliness of the petition 18. With respect to the three criminal cases brought against Mr. Montesinos, which the State alleged were still open when the petition was filed, the Commission reiterates that the situation that must be taken into account to determine whether or not domestic remedies have been exhausted is that which exists when deciding on admissibility.1 19. The Commission observes that two of the cases were closed after they were ultimately dismissed in 1998. As to the third case, the Commission takes note that in his March 2004 communication, the petitioner indicated that the alleged victim had been acquitted and that the prosecuting authority had filed an appeal. The IACHR lacks information about whether a decision was ever made regarding that appeal. 20. The information available indicates that domestic jurisdiction was definitively exhausted with respect to two of the proceedings. In the case of the third, however, as it ended in an acquittal, the appeal of which remains pending, the IACHR is of the understanding that Mr. Montesinos is not required to pursue any further remedy whatsoever in connection with his exoneration. In light of the foregoing, the IACHR considers that as far as the criminal cases are concerned, the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies has been met. Moreover, bearing in mind that the remedies were exhausted after the petition was submitted, the IACHR believes that fulfillment of the requirement to file the petition in a timely manner is intrinsically linked to the exhaustion of domestic remedies and has thus been met. 21. Regarding the allegations of torture, the IACHR recalls that the appropriate and effective remedy is a criminal investigation and proceeding and that the State has the ex officio duty to foster and advance both.2 The documents furnished by the parties reveal that the alleged torture and abuse were reported in the habeas corpus appeal filed in September 1996. Despite this, the case file does not indicate, nor has the State claimed, that any investigation whatsoever was ever launched. Consequently, the IACHR has concluded that Article 46(2)(c) of the Convention applies to this aspect of the petition inasmuch as the State engaged in unwarranted delay by not offering the alleged victim the suitable remedy for his reports of torture. With respect to this matter, the IACHR contends that the petition was filed in a timely manner. 22. As to the allegations about Mr. Montesinos’ arrest and length of his pretrial detention, the Commission recalls that at that time, a habeas corpus appeal had to be filed with an administrative authority, 1 IACHR, Report No. 84/12, Petition 677-04, Admissibility, Luis Fernando García García et. al., Ecuador, November 8, 2012, paragraph 39. 2 IACHR, Report No. 20/17, Petition 1500-08, Admissibility, Rodolfo Piñeyro, Argentina, March 12, 2017, paragraph 5. 3