implies violation of Article 4 of the Convention, which entered into force for Brazil on September 25, 1992; b. To the extent that Brazil failed to submit information on the individuals who disappeared and to allow events to be clarified, the State violated the right to establish the truth (Articles 8, 13, and 25 of the Convention); c. In failing to determine the criminal responsibility of those responsible for the violations, the State violated Article 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and Article 25 (Right to Judicial Protection); d. As concerns the impossibility of locating the bodies so as to bury them properly, the petitioners also allege violation of Article 12 (Freedom of Conscience and Religion); e. The indemnification made and steps taken to locate and identify the bodies of the guerrillas, measures taken pursuant to Law Nº 9140 of 1995, do not discharge the State of its responsibility to investigate the circumstances in which the disappearances occurred and to punish those responsible. For this reason, the Amnesty Act and the aforementioned Law Nº 9140/95 constitute separate violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. f. With respect to all the rights enshrined in the Convention that have allegedly been violated, a separate violation of Article 1(1) of the American Convention is also alleged. In that article, the States Parties undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any form of discrimination. 28. The petitioners consider that the conditions for the petition's admissibility have been met. With respect to exhaustion of domestic remedies, it is alleged that there was unwarranted delay in rendering judgment under existing remedies, implying that the exception provided for in Article 46(2)(c) of the Convention applies. They allege that the excessive length of judicial proceedings and the State's refusal to submit information available to it are the sources of the unwarranted delay. 29. In view of the foregoing allegations, the petitioners request that the case be declared admissible and that a report be drawn up in the terms of Article 50 of the Convention, finding that the State is in violation of Article I, Article XXV, and Article XXVI of the American Declaration, and of Articles 1(1), 8, 12, 13, and 25 of the American Convention. B. Position of the State 30. From its first submission in the proceedings, received on June 26, 1996, the Government of Brazil did not contest the facts mentioned in the initial petition regarding the existence of armed conflict between the guerrillas and the Brazilian armed forces in the Araguaia region. On the contrary, in subsequent communications, 7 the Government clearly states that in enacting Law Nº 9140 of 1995, the State acknowledged the civil and administrative responsibility of its agents for the facts reported. 31. However, the Government alleges that there are available domestic remedies that were not exhausted by the petitioners. First, it is alleged that although the federal judicial proceedings, instituted in 1982, have lasted many years, they are proceeding normally, in accordance with Brazilian legal procedure. Secondly, with respect to the information that the petitioners wish to obtain from the Government, the State alleged that it may be obtained through a writ of habeas data, as provided for in the Federal Constitution, as well as through the usual judicial process. 32. The State alleges that in enacting Law Nº 9140, the State acknowledged its responsibility and made reparation for the violation through indemnification of the victims' families. 7See the note from the Government, received on March 6, 1997, and the note from the Conselho de Defesa dos Direitos da Pessoa Humana [Council for the Defense of Human Rights], dated Feburary 25, 1997, transmitting that note. 5