6 prove that domestic remedies have not been exhausted, unless that is clearly evident from the record.5 27. In the instant case, the State alleges that the petitioners’ claim does not meet the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies established in Article 46(1) of the American Convention given that they had remedies available such as the action for injunction, the noncompliance action, the extraordinary action for injunction, and the action for habeas corpus. For their part, the petitioners allege that domestic remedies have been exhausted in accordance with Article 46.1(a) of the American Convention, given that more than 20 years after the facts occurred, the State has been negligent in investigating those facts. 28. In view of the allegations made by the parties, the first thing that should be made clear is what domestic remedies need to be exhausted in a case such as this one. The Commission’s established precedent indicates that any time an offense is committed that the State may prosecute of its own initiative, the State has the obligation to promote and pursue criminal prosecution 6 and that, in those cases, this process constitutes the most suitable avenue to shed light on the facts, to bring those responsible to trial and to establish the appropriate legal sanctions, in addition to making other types of monetary reparation possible. The Commission considers that the facts presented by the petitioners with regard to the disappearance of César Gustavo Garzón Guzmán constitute, under domestic legislation, criminal conduct that the State may prosecute of its own initiative and whose investigation and prosecution must be pursued by the State itself. 29. The Commission notes that 20 years after the facts that are the basis of this complaint occurred, the criminal investigation remains at the preliminary stage, no person has been formally charged with a crime, and the State has not provided any information regarding what measures are being considered to complete the investigation. In that regard, the Commission notes that, as a general rule, a criminal investigation must be initiated quickly in order to protect the interests of the victim, to preserve the evidence and even to safeguard the rights of any person who within the context of the investigation may be considered a suspect. As the Inter-American Court has pointed out, although every criminal investigation must meet a series of legal requirements, the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies rule must not lead to the point where international action to assist the victim is stopped or delayed so long that it becomes useless. 7 30. With regard to the effectiveness of the action for injunction, the non-compliance action and the extraordinary action for injunction, the Commission notes that these actions were established in the Constitution passed in 2008, 18 years after the facts occurred and, therefore, they would not have been the most suitable remedies to resolve the complaint lodged by the petitioners. 31. With regard to the action for habeas corpus established in Article 19, paragraph 18(i) of the Constitution in force at the time the facts occurred, the Commission notes that although the petitioners did not lodge this remedy, they allege that, on the day of César Gustavo Garzón’s disappearance, they did go to the Criminal Investigation Service of Pichincha to report it but that, on that occasion, the authorities refused to take the complaint so they returned on November 16, 1990, in order to lodge it. The Commission notes that, to date, the investigation remains in the preliminary stage. In its allegations, the State did not make reference to any progress made in the development Article 31(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission. See IA Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Judgment dated July 29, 1988, paragraph 64. 5 6 IACHR, Report No. 52/97, Case 11.218, Arges Sequeira Mangas, IACHR Annual Report 1997, paras.. 96 and 97. See also, Report No. 55/97, Case 11.137, Abella et al., para. 392. 7 para. 3. IA Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Preliminary Exceptions. Judgment dated June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1,