6 in the judgment rendered in the third instance by the National Police Court of Justice against two police agents for simple homicide, sentencing them to eight years in prison, but that said judgment was not executed, and the convicted parties remain at large. According to the information it received, the Commission notes that the State did not provide information on the action taken by the authorities to capture the perpetrators, other than issuance of the arrest warrant. 32. In this regard, the Commission has repeatedly found that special jurisdictions, such as military or police courts, do not constitute an adequate forum and consequently do not provide an adequate remedy to investigate, prosecute and punish possible violations of the human rights— such as the right to life--enshrined in the American Convention, that are committed by members of the police. 2 It also has found that the Ecuadorian Police Courts do not provide an adequate remedy for these cases 3. Article 165 of the 1979 Ecuadorian Political Constitution, in force at the time the events occurred, established that: “[t]he members of the police force have a special jurisdiction. They may not be prosecuted or deprived of their ranking, honors, or pension except for the reasons and in the way determined by the law, with the exception of common violations, which shall be decided in the ordinary courts.” 4 The military and police courts comprised this special jurisdiction. 33. The Commission has previously stated that cases related to alleged violations of civil rights require a criminal investigation to establish the facts and the corresponding responsibility. 5 In this petition, the judge in the ordinary criminal court withdrew from the criminal proceeding opened on the death of Aníbal Alonso Aguas Acosta, in favor of the police criminal jurisdiction, and this decision was upheld when it was challenged by the petitioners in their motion of appeal and subsequent motion of complaint, which were denied. Moreover, when the petitioners’ motions were denied, they filed a constitutional amparo motion which was also rejected, and their appeal to the Constitutional Tribunal resulted in confirmation of the previous decision. 34. In view of the foregoing, the petition falls within the scope of the exception to exhaustion of domestic remedies stipulated in Article 46.2(b) of the American Convention, which establishes that said exception applies when: “… the party alleging violation of his rights has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law or has been prevented from exhausting them.” Consequently, prior exhaustion of domestic remedies is not required. 35. Article 46.1(a), by its nature and purpose, is a legal norm whose content is independent of the substantive rules of the Convention. Therefore, exhaustion of the domestic remedies applicable to the case in question must be determined in advance and separately from the analysis into the merits of the case, since it relies on a standard of evaluation different from the one used to determine a possible violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. It is important to clarify that the causes and the effects of exhaustion of judicial remedies referred to in this case will be analyzed in the report on the merits of the case adopted by the Commission, when it will determine whether they consist of violations of the American Convention. 2 IACHR Report No. 64/01, Petition 11712, Leonel de Jesús Isaza Echeverry et al, Colombia, 6 April 2001, para. 22. Also see: Inter-American Court, Case of Durand y Ugarte, Judgment of 16 August 2000, Series C No. 68, para. 117; Case of Cesti Hurtado, Judgment of 29 September 1999, Series C No. 65, para. 151. Also see IACHR, Repiort on the Human Rights Situation in Chile, 27 September 1985, pp. 199, 200. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.66 doc. 17; IACHR, 1996 Annual Report, 14 March 1997, p. 688; IACHR, Report on the Human Rights Situation in Ecuador, 24 April 1997, p. 36; IACHR, Report on the Human Rights Situation in Brazil, 29 September 1997, p. 50. 3 IACHR, Report No. 11/02, Petition 12394, Joaquín Hernández Alvarado et al, Ecuador, 27 February 2002, para. 18 and Report No. 74/09, Petition 386-02, Mickey Alexis Mendoza Sánchez and family, Ecuador, 5 August 2009, para. 19. para. 20. 4 1979 Constitution of Ecuador, amended in 1996. 5 IACHR, Report No. 74/09, Petition 386-02, Mickey Alexis Mendoza Sánchez and family, Ecuador, 5 August 2009,