5 finding human rights violations but w ithout establishing criminal liability or punishments for any specific individuals. According to the petitioners, the Supreme Court’ s involvement w as extraordinary in nature and unrelated to its jurisdictional functions. They further report that the National Human Rights Commission opened an ex officio complaint regarding the facts and that, on October 16, 2006, it issued recommendation 38/2006, finding that several human rights violations had taken place, including the sexual assaults suffered by the alleged victims. 23. Regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies, they contend that the exceptions to the exhaustion rule apply since there has been an unw arranted delay in resolving them and no legal process exists for the pursuit of a suitable, impartial investigation. They claim that the State seeks to justify the delay in the proceedings on account of the complexity of the investigations. How ever, the petitioners point out that the proceedings opened at the state level w ere for minor offenses and w ere shelved in April 2007. At the federal level, the office of the Special Prosec utor failed to bring charges against the alleged perpetrators and declined competence in favor of the state of México on July 13, 2009. They report that on March 10, 2010, after a long period of inaction, the office of the Assistant Attorney General referred the proceedings to the General Directorate of Inspectors for further action. In other w ords, they contend that more than four years after the incidents occurred, the investigations have produced no results and the authorities have acted negligently. 24. The petitioners question the impartiality of the investigation in light of public statements made by the Mexican authorities reportedly discrediting the alleged victims. They hold that the lack of due diligence on the part of the authorities in the proceedings and the inaccurate prosecution of the offenses gives rise to a situation w here the possibilities of justice and redress for the alleged victims are illusory. 25. The petitioners further contend that the amparo remedy w hich the State claims has to be exhausted is a special remedy that does not require exhaustion since the alleged victims filed for criminal action, w hich the State itself must pursue. That notw ithstanding, they hold that w ith respect to the filing of an amparo remedy in connection w ith the federal system’ s declination of jurisdiction in favor of the state system, the prevailing case law of the Supreme Court indicates that such a transfer of competence does not violate individual guarantees. Furthermore, they contend that amparo is not admissible w ith respect to a decision to shelve an investigation, since Article 158 of the Amparo Law states that direct amparo may be admitted solely against final judgments or decisions. Regarding filings for amparo by the victims in criminal proceedings, they note that they are limited to redress for damages or civil responsibility and to resolutions of the Public Prosecution Service deciding to cease or refrain from pursuing criminal action, and that they are not admissible w ith respect to an unfavorable judgment. 26. They add that the resolutions of the National Human Rights Commission and of the Supreme Court of Justice referred to above are not binding, and that neither are they appropriate remedies for rectifying the human rights violations described. They note that the Supreme Court ’ s intervention w as by means of a special investigation that w as separate from its jurisdictional duties. B. State 27. The State holds that the petition should not be admitted because the petitioners have not exhausted the available domestic remedies and the investigation remains ongoing. It further contends that the exceptions to the rule requiring the exhaustion of domestic remedies have not been triggered. 28. According to the State, on May 3 and 4, 2006, clashes occurred betw een the security forces of the state of México and the federal preventive police on the one hand, and market traders, local residents, and members of civil society organizations on the other, follow ing the eviction of a group of florists w ho had set up stalls w ithout permission outside the market in