two proceedings in order to determine whether the domestic remedies have been exhausted. The Commission notes that the trial of responsibilities against former President Luís García Meza and his collaborators concluded with a conviction issued in a single instance decision of the Supreme Court of Justice on April 21, 1993. In addition, the Commission notes that in the context of the criminal proceeding initiated in February 1999, some of the accused were acquitted, first and second instance decisions were handed down convicting some of the accused and acquitting others, and the cassation appeal filed by the parties is now pending a decision. 53. Although the Bolivian State conducted a trial of responsibilities against some of the instigators of the events that resulted in the disappearance of Mr. Juan Carlos Flores Bedregal, the Commission considers that the opening of the second criminal proceeding in 1999 at the request of the National Congress can be considered an indication that the investigations and penalties derived from the trial of responsibilities were insufficient. Based on the information available at this stage, with 29 years having passed since the events and the first complaint filed by the relatives of the alleged victim, the circumstances of his disappearance have still not been cleared up, his fate or that of his mortal remains have not been determined, nor have the instigators or perpetrators of the crimes been punished. 54. The Commission notes that the State referred to the complexity of the matter and other difficulties in order to justify the delay in the second criminal proceeding. However, the State did not explain in concrete terms how the complexity of the matter and other difficulties created the delay. The Commission considers that these arguments are not sufficient to justify decades during which the State failed to take measures to initiate investigations ex officio nor the delays that, according to the available information, have occurred in the context of the proceedings initiated, in which long periods of inactivity have been alleged to have occurred for causes attributable to court authorities and prosecutors in the Office of the Public Prosecutor. 55. In the merits phase, the Commission will analyze in detail whether the Bolivian State afforded the relatives of the alleged victim an effective remedy with due guarantees by means of these proceedings. However, the passage of nearly three decades since the events and ten years since the second criminal proceeding began, without any determination as to the fate of Mr. Flores Bedregal and without any final decision establishing what happened and punishing those responsible, is sufficient to conclude that there has been an unwarranted delay under the terms of Article 46.2.c of the American Convention. C. Deadline for Submitting the Petition 56. Article 46.1.b of the Convention establishes that in order for the petition to be declared admissible, it must have been submitted within a period of six months from the date on which the interested party was notified of the final decision that exhausted the domestic jurisdiction. This rule does not apply when the Commission finds one of the exceptions to exhaustion of domestic remedies as established in Article 46.2 of the Convention. In such cases, the Commission must determine whether the petition was submitted in a reasonable period of time in accordance with Article 32 of its Rules of Procedure. 57. As indicated above in paragraph 55, the Commission concluded that in the instant case there has been an unwarranted delay in the decision, in accordance with Article 46.2.c of the American Convention. Taking into consideration the ongoing nature of the alleged forced disappearance of the alleged victim, as well as the failure to clear up his whereabouts or the corresponding responsibility, and the alleged denial of justice in the