Justice system, the petitioners argue, first, that it was ineffective because of excessive delay; subsequently, that the appeal decision went against Messrs. Cabrera García and Montiel Flores, who were sentenced despite the fact that they had been released at the initiative of the Federal Executive, as indicated above. 36. The Commission considers that the motion for amparo brought before the Second Circuit Court, by which the petitioners challenged the appeals ruling that had confirmed their conviction, was the appropriate route for resolving the matter. That appeal was decided on August 14, 2002, ten months after petition 735/01 was submitted. The Commission considers it unnecessary to examine the arguments of the petitioners as to applicability of the exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies (although it must note that the State did not respond to those arguments), because that requirement was clearly fulfilled during proceedings in this matter. 37. The Commission must also point out that the "expanded petition" submitted by the petitioners was intended to introduce as a new fact the judgment of August 2002 mentioned above. There was no response to that communication from the State, despite the IACHR's repeated request. The Commission considers this silence on the part of the State as tacit renunciation of the exception of exhaustion of domestic remedies that it alleged indirectly in its first submission, and expressly in the second, which in fact constituted the last communication on this petition. Consequently, the Commission considers that the judgment of August 14, 2002, fulfilled the requirement of Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention. 38. The IACHR also notes that, since their first communication, the petitioners argued the exception to exhaustion of domestic remedies with respect to investigation of the torture that the victims suffered.26 As explained above, that position is based on the fact that the PGJM lacks competence to investigate the deeds denounced, both under Mexican legislation and under jurisprudence of the inter-American system, because those deeds relate to violations of human rights attributed to members of the Armed Forces. 39. Although the State did not directly establish the suitability of the military investigation to determine the deeds denounced, it described to the Commission the steps taken to apply administrative punishment to any persons found responsible, and it referred to the access that the alleged victims' representatives were granted to the investigation opened by the PGJM. Nevertheless, it is also been shown that, despite the IACHR's repeated requests, the Mexican State did not respond to the request for information on the communication of the petitioners of November 11, 2002, nor did it present information subsequent to the note of June 23, 2003, with which the Commission transmitted the final arguments of the petitioners on admissibility in this case. 40. With respect to the preliminary investigation opened by the PGJM into the alleged acts of torture, the Commission has declared repeatedly that military jurisdiction is not an appropriate forum, and does not provide an adequate remedy for investigating, prosecuting and punishing violations of human rights protected in the American Convention.27 In light of all the foregoing, 26 On this point, the petitioners maintain: As can be seen from the facts, the Military Prosecutor’s Office was not competent to investigate the facts denounced, because it lacks the legal power to do so, since it can only consider acts of military personnel that contravene military discipline, and cases of human rights violations must be submitted to civilian jurisdiction. According to Article 21 of the Constitution, the investigation and prosecution of crimes falls to the Public Ministry, and because in this case the crime was perpetrated by federal public servants the investigation should have been conducted by the Federal Prosecutions Office, which is why the victims' attorneys have repeatedly demanded that the case be heard by that office and not by the military prosecutor. Nevertheless the Federal Prosecutions Office declined this responsibility, the National Commission on Human Rights ignored the complaint submitted on this point, and the Military Prosecutor also ignored the demand. The fact is that until this time, the military institution involved in the deeds announced earlier, and which has had the investigation of those deeds in its hands for the last two years and five months, has failed to act diligently and impartially for the purpose referred to in Article 25 of the Convention, and so the criminal action has been ineffective, and neither the facts nor those responsible for them have been identified.Communication of the petitioners of October 25, 2001, page 35 27 IACHR, Report Nº 43/02, Admissibility, Petition 12.009, Leyli Dayan Sanchez, Colombia, October 9, 2002, paragraph 23; Third Report on the Human Rights Situation in Colombia (1999), page 175; Second Report on the Human Rights Situation in Colombia (1993), page 246; Report on the Human Rights Situation in Brazil (1997), pages 40-42. As well, 8