considered effective.12 That could be the case, for example, when practice has shown its ineffectiveness, […] or in any other situation that constitutes a denial of justice, 13 as when there is an unjustified delay in the decision. 26. In this regard, and as already indicated, in their initial petition before the Commission, the representatives affirmed that the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies was not applicable in this case based on Article 46(2) of the Convention, because, despite the efforts of the father of Claudina Velásquez as joint complainant: He has found it almost impossible to obtain substantial progress in the investigations. […] On several occasions, Mr. Velásquez Durán has asked the Public Prosecution Service to conduct investigation procedures that required judicial authorization […]. Even though some of these have been carried out, this has been extremely belatedly, thus resulting in their ineffectiveness. […] In view of the failings of the Public Prosecution Service, Mr. Velásquez filed a complaint before the Supervisor General of this organ to obtain the sanction of those responsible for the violations of due process […]. Even though the Supervisor concluded that the procedure had provided ‘inadequate treatment to the victim, her parents and next of kin […],’ it merely made a couple of recommendations. […] Meanwhile, in a resolution of July 20, 2006, the Ombudsman declared that the internal procedures of the Public Prosecution Service had been inadequate to protect the rights of Mr. Velásquez Durán. Accordingly, the negligence, the flaws in the investigation, the delay in conducting procedures, and the humiliating treatment had not been subject to disciplinary or administrative reprimands within the Public Prosecution Service, thus revealing a pattern of tolerance towards such practices. 27. Regarding the investigation into the death of Claudina Velásquez, the State indicated, in this communication of May 17, 2010, that “the agents of justice who were investigating the incident in 2005 took emergency measures to collect evidence that were viewed negatively by the Velásquez Paiz family and, therefore, the agents of justice were issued with the corresponding sanctions.” It also indicated that: (i) “it continue[d] to monitor all the investigative actions through the Public Prosecution Service”; (ii) the “investigation [… had] not concluded”; (iii) “under the line of investigation that the Public Prosecution Service [was] currently following, information had surface of presumed suspects, against whom a possible accusation could be filed,” and (iv) “the petition [was] inadmissible because the domestic remedies had not yet been filed and exhausted.” 28. In this regard, the Court considers that, in its brief, the State had accepted that, to date, “the agents of justice” had taken actions that warranted sanction, implicitly admitting the possibility that, at the time the petition was lodged, the domestic remedies suffered from unjustified delays and lack of effectiveness (supra para. 27). The file contained a resolution dated July 20, 2006 – in other words, before the initial petition was lodged and before the above-mentioned State brief – in which the Guatemalan Ombudsman declared “the violation of the obligation to respect and to ensure the rights to life, personal safety and justice within a reasonable time, and the right to effective judicial protection of Claudina Isabel Velásquez Paiz and her next of kin,” as well as the “violation of the right to be treated with dignity and respect of the next of kin of the victim who are seeking justice.”14 Moreover, it is admissible to take into consideration that, although the State indicated, in its brief of May 17, 2010, answering the initial petition, that domestic remedies had not been exhausted, it made no mention whatsoever Cf. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27.2, 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 24. See, also: Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 145; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 111, and Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, supra, para. 61. 13 Cf. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27.2, 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights), supra, para. 24, and Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 4, 2011 Series C No. 223, para. 75. 14 Cf. Resolution of July 20, 2006 (evidence file, folios 3255 and 3259). 12 11