30. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention requires the prior exhaustion of remedies available in the domestic jurisdiction in keeping with generally recognized principles of international law as a requirement for admitting claims regarding alleged violations of the American Convention. 31. Article 46(2) of the Convention provides that the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies does 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. As the Inter-American Court has established, whenever a state alleges failure to exhaust domestic remedies by the petitioner, it bears the burden of showing that the remedies that have not been exhausted are “adequate” for curing the violation alleged, i.e. that the function of such remedies within the domestic legal system is suitable for protecting the legal situation that has been infringed.18 32. In the instant case the State alleges that the domestic remedies have been exhausted with the judgment on appeal by the Superior Military Tribunal of March 1, 2000. The petitioners alleged that the exceptions to the prior exhaustion requirement set out at Article 46(2)(a) apply to this case, since the investigation into the death of Gustavo Giraldo Villamizar was carried out before the military criminal jurisdiction. 33. In view of the parties’ allegations, one should first clarify what domestic remedies are to be exhausted in a case such as the instant one, in light of the case-law of the inter-American system. The precedents established by the Commission indicate that whenever a crime is committed that can be prosecuted at the initiative of the prosecutorial authorities (un delito perseguible de oficio), the State has 18 Article 31(3) of the Commission’s Rule s of Procedure. See also I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras Case. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 64. 12