5 26. The Commission has temporal jurisdiction, since the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected in the American Convention was already in effect for the State on the date that the acts alleged in the petition occurred. Finally, the Commission has subject matter jurisdiction, because the petition refers to possible violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. B. Requirements for admissibility 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 27. In order for a petition alleging a violation of the provisions of the American Convention to be admissible, it must comply with the requirements established in Article 46.1(a) of that international instrument pertaining to prior exhaustion of remedies under domestic law. For its part, Article 46(2) of the Convention establishes that the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies shall not be applicable when: (a) 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) the party alleging violation of his rights has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law or has been prevented from exhausting them; or (c) there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. 28. In the first place, the domestic remedies that must be exhausted in the present case need to be clarified. The Inter-American Court has stated that only the adequate remedies to redress the violations allegedly committed must be exhausted. Adequate remedies refer to the fact that these remedies in the domestic legal system are adequate to protect the violated legal situation. In all domestic legal systems, there are various remedies, but not all of them are applicable in all circumstances. If, in a specific case, the remedy is not adequate, it is obvious that it does not need to be exhausted. This is indicated by the principle that the legal provision is designed to produce an effect and it cannot be interpreted that it does not produce any effect or that it is manifestly groundless or obviously out of order. 1 29. In the present petition, the State argues that the facts described in the petition gave rise to proceedings conducted diligently in the police criminal jurisdiction. The petitioners on the other hand, argue that the exception stipulated in Article 46.2(b) and (c) of the American Convention applies, since the proceedings were conducted in the police criminal courts, and there was an unwarranted delay in the proceedings and noncompliance with the judicial decision. 30. The Commission notes that in view of the fact that the present complaint involves the alleged responsibility of State agents in the detention, torture, and death of a civilian, the adequate remedy to clarify the facts is a criminal investigation in the ordinary courts, in order to establish the criminal responsibility of the State agents involved and to open the door to possible reparations for the damages incurred. 31. The Commission observes that the death of Aníbal Alonso Aguas Acosta was the subject of an ordinary criminal investigation that was transferred by the judge’s decision to the jurisdiction of the police courts. The decision was appealed by the petitioners, who also presented a motion of complaint for refusal to allow the appeal [recurso de hecho]. They were both denied. Against this decision they filed a constitutional amparo motion with the Contentious Administrative Court of Guayaquil, which was also denied. Said decision was appealed before the Constitutional Court, which confirmed the lower court decision. Proceedings before the police courts culminated 1 Inter-American Court, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Judgment of July 29, 1988, Series C No. 4, para. 63.