15 that the criminal case be reopened based on the report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Barrios Altos case, which found that Amnesty Laws 26479 and 26492 were incompatible with the American Convention. 88. The Commission finds that, at present, that is, almost 20 years after the events, there are two criminal proceedings underway: one is for the crime of genocide against the only serviceman captured to date, which is at the trial stage; the other, for the crime of genocide, is at the investigation stage and was initiated in 2008 by the Office of the Huancavelica Supraprovincial Criminal Prosecutor against Simón Fidel Palante, who was identified by the other military personnel as the person who shot the 15 detained/disappeared persons. As yet, despite the fact that nearly 20 years have elapsed since the events, neither of these two proceedings has concluded and the human remains found at Misteriosa mine have not been identified. 89. The Commission’s case law recognizes that when a publicly actionable offense is committed, the 4 State has the obligation to institute criminal proceedings and pursue them, and that in such cases, this is the best way to clarify the facts, prosecute the perpetrators, and establish the corresponding criminal punishment, in addition to providing for other forms of reparation, including financial reparation. Consequently, the Commission notes that the allegations of the petitioners as regards the detention and subsequent forced disappearance of 5 6 seven children (three girls and four boys) and eight adults amount, under Peruvian domestic law, to criminal conduct whose investigation and prosecution should be initiated and pursued ex officio by the State, and therefore this is the process that constitutes the suitable remedy in the instant case. 90. In this regard, the Commission notes that, as a general rule, criminal investigations must be conducted promptly, in order to protect the interests of the victims, preserve the evidence, and safeguard the rights of anyone considered a suspect in the context of the investigation. As the Inter-American Court has noted, while every criminal investigation must meet a series of legal requirements, the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies should not lead international action on behalf of the victims to come to a halt or to be delayed 7 to the point of being rendered ineffective. 91. Therefore, given the characteristics of the instant case and the time elapsed since the events that are the subject of the petition, the Commission finds to be applicable the exception provided in Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention as regards the delay in domestic judicial proceedings. Therefore, the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies can be set aside. 92. Invocation of the exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies provided in Article 46(2) of the Convention is closely linked to the determination of possible violations of certain rights set forth therein, such as guarantees of access to justice. Nonetheless Article 46(2), by its nature and purpose, is autonomous from the substantive provisions of the Convention. Therefore, to determine whether or not the exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies are applicable to a particular case requires an examination carried out in advance of and separate from the analysis of the merits of the case, since it depends on a different standard of appreciation to that used to establish whether or not there has been a violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. 4 IACHR. Report 52/97, Arges Sequeira Mangas, February 18, 1998, pars. 96 and 97; Report 55/97, Juan Carlos Abella, November 18, 1997, par. 392, and Report 62/00, Hernando Osorio Correa, October 3, 2000, par. 24. 5 The sisters Yasenia Osnayo Hilario, Miriam Osnayo Hilario, and Roxana Onayo Hilario; Wilmer Hilario Carhuapoma, and the brothers Alex Jorge Héctor Hilario Guillén, Raúl Hilario Guillén, and Héctor Hilario Guillén. 6 Francisco Hilario Torres, Dionicia Quispe Mallqui, Antonia Hilario Quispe, Magdalena Hilario Quispe, Mercedes Carhuapoma de la Cruz, Ramón Hilario Morán, Dionicia Guillén Riveros, and Elihoref Huamaní Vergara. 7 I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C, No. 1, par. 93.