8 B. Admissibility requirements 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 40. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention states that for a complaint lodged w ith the Inter-American Commission to be admissible under Article 44 of the Convention, the remedies available under domestic law must have first been pursued and exhausted in accordance w ith generally recognized principles of international law . That requirement is intended to facilitate the domestic authorities’ examination of the alleged violation of a protected right and, if appropriate, to enable them to resolve it before it is brought before an international venue. Article 46(2) of the Convention establishes three situations in w hich the rule requiring the exhaustion of domestic remedies does not apply: (a) w hen 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) w hen the party alleging violation of his rights has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law or has been prevented from exhausting them, and (c) w hen there has been an unw arranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. Those precepts address not only to the formal existence of such remedies, but also their adequacy and effectiveness. 41. In the case at hand, the State maintains that the investigation of the incidents remains pending, that the remedies offered by domestic jurisdiction have not been exhausted, and that the petitioners failed to pursue a suit for indirect amparo. In turn, the petitioners contend that the exceptions to the exhaustion of domestic remedies apply because there has been an unw arranted delay. 42. The Commission notes that five years have passed since the alleged incidents and, as of the date of the drafting of this report, the State has presented no specific information on the steps taken to further the investigation. At the federal level, both parties indicate t hat the FEVIMTRA declined competence in favor of the state authorities on July 13, 2009 , that is, three years after the investigation w as opened. The IACHR notes that from that date until March 10, 2010, w hen the proceedings w ere forw arded to the General Directorate of Inspectors, the available information indicates that the investigation w as inactive. At the same time, at the state level, the IACHR notes that the First Panel of the Directorate of Responsibilities of the México State Attorney General’ s Office opened tw o preliminary inquiries that w ere later combined w ith preliminary inquiry TOL/DR/I/466/2006 on May 11, 2006. How ever, on account of the lack of evidence for establishing criminal responsibility and for determining the crime of torture, the prosecution service resolved to shelve the investigation on March 8, 2007. 43. Regarding the progress tow ard casting light on the incident and punishing the guilty taken since March 10, 2010, the State only reports that statements have been taken from 25 of the 30 police officers w ho w ere traveling on the buses on w hich several of the sexual assaults allegedly took place. In addition, it merely refers to a number of formalities pending implementation, but it provides no specific information that w ould indicate that the investigation is being processed in a timely fashion. 44. In addition, the IACHR notes that the authorities have brought criminal prosecutions in only tw o of the 11 complaints covered by this case. In the case of Ana María Velasco Rodríguez, her alleged assailant w as acquitted of the charges of “ lew d offenses” by an amparo resolution of February 19, 2009, that voided the conviction handed dow n in the appellate court’ s judgment and decision. That information has not been disputed by the State. In the case of María Patricia Romero, an investigation into the crime of abuse of authority w as opened, but w ith respect to the public administration and not the alleged victim; on June 15, 2006, 21 police officers from the state of México w ere arraigned and subsequently acquitted by means of a first -instance judgment of February 19, 2010. That information has not been disputed by the State.