8 10 remains were discovered. In addition, it notes that in order to achieve progress in the investigation, new lines of investigation have been proposed, both short and long term, and that on September 1, 2005, a copy of the 260 folios in case M001/2005/95839, before Agency No. 4 of the Special Cases and Human Rights Violations Unit of the Office of the Prosecutor with the Human Rights Section of the Guatemala City Public Prosecutor’s Office, has been included in the record of Case 255-93. 31. Moreover, it indicates that in Case No. 247/1995/802 – to which was attached criminal case 247/1995/1085--, opened based on a complaint filed May 30, 1995, by Ms. Juana García de Paz before the Human Rights Ombudsman’s Office (Procuraduría de Derechos Humanos), and in the course of which several amended submissions were filed, multiple extrajudicial executions, forced disappearances, and the existence of clandestine cemeteries were alleged. It indicates that many of the persons with respect to whom said case is being brought are victims in this petition: (1) José Grave García; (2) Eusebia Grave García; (3) Mateo Grave; (4) Juan Alvarado Grave; (5) Efraín García Valle; (6) Gregorio Valey; (7) Silvestre Sic Xitumul; (8) Adrián García Manuel; (9) Hugo García de Paz; and (10) Habrán Alvarado de Paz. 11 32. Along similar lines, it reports that in Case 247/1995/1083 , pursued as of a complaint filed on July 27, 1995 before the Human Rights Ombudsman’s Office due to the existence of a clandestine cemetery, acts of violence perpetrated against the alleged victims were also being investigated. In that regard, the State identifies: (1) Víctor Alvarado Sucup: (2) Ceferino Alvarado Sucup; (3) Fidel Alvarado Sucup; (4) Domingo Reyes Juárez; (5) Andrés Reyes Román; (6) Santiago Reyes Román; (7) Eusebia Grave García; (8) José León Grave García; (9) Silvestre Sic Xitumul; (10) Gregoria Valey Ixtecoc; (11) Elías Milián González; (12) Amelia Milián González; and (13) Medardo Juárez García. It indicates that during this proceeding, corpses were exhumed on April 9, 2002, and that on February 27, 2003, the bony remains recovered were inspected and 13 of them were handed over to the aggrieved family members. 33. With regard to the admissibility of the petition, the State recognized that the Commission is competent ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione temporis and ratione materiae to take cognizance of the complaint lodged. However, invoked the objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, given the existence of judicial and administrative remedies available in the national jurisdiction. 34. In this regard, the State observes that criminal proceedings are under way currently in the investigative phase. It also notes that without prejudice to the decision reached by the IACHR on the merits of this petition, the causes that led to the procedural delays that affected Case 255-93 will be investigated. 35. Moreover, it contends that there are administrative remedies that have not been exhausted. In this regard, it invokes the PNR, noting that despite being an administrative mechanism it is an adequate and effective remedy that allows Guatemala to investigate and make reparation for human rights violations committed during the internal conflict which the petitioners are entitled to access because the facts claimed are based on the Report for the Recuperation of Historical Memory. It also states that 12 31 people from the village of Chichupac have received financial compensation under this program , as 10 In addition the State mentions, among others, the ballistic expert review conducted on the evidence found in the clandestine graves; issuing a listing of civilian patrols to the Secretariat for Technical Assistance in order to determine which were acting in Rabinal, information requests to several institutions on patrol identified by witnesses, and another exhumation on April 9, 2002, at the “Los Naranjales” farm. In addition, it reports that on September 3, 2009, the Public Prosecutor’s Office sought authorization from the judge to require the Ministry of Defense to submit information in a prudential term, and that the request was granted. 11 The State explains that this proceeding was also joined to proceeding 247/1995/802, as they refer to the same facts and the same complainants. 12 Note from the State of March 23, 2009.