6 jurisprudence of the int er-American system. The precedents established by the Commission indicate that w henever an alleged crime is committed that is prosecutable ex officio, the State has the obligation to conduct the criminal proceeding 3 and that, in such cases, this is the suitable route for shedding light on the facts, trying those responsible, and establishing the appropriate criminal punishment , in addition to making possible other monetary forms of compensation . The Commission notes that the facts presented by the petitioners regarding the disappearance of Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe are defined under domestic law as criminal conduct prosecutable ex officio the investigation and prosecution of w hich should be conducted by the State itself . 29. As reported, more than 23 years have passed since the occurrence of the events covered in the complaint and the criminal investigation remains suspended in accordance w ith a ruling of August 25, 1997 issued by the Regional Prosecutor’ s Office of Medellín, 4 and as a result no one has been found criminally responsible. In view of the above, the Commission understands that the investigation w ould continue to be suspended and its possible reopening w ould depend on the emergence of new evidence. It is not appropriate for the relatives to bear the procedural burden of promoting a criminal investigation and the State has not alleged that they should have invoked other measures in the context of that proceeding. The Commission notes that the State does not justify or explain the period of time that has gone by w ithout any procedural activity at all since the suspension of the investigation. 30. In this regard, the Commission notes that, as a general rule, a criminal investigation must be conducted quickly in order to protect the interests of the victim s, preserve the evidence, and safeguard the rights of anyone w ho is considered a suspect in the context of the investigation . As the Inter-American Court has pointed out, although any criminal investigation must meet a series of legal requirements, the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies should not lead to a halt or delay in the international proceeding in support of the victim to the point that it is useless. 5 In the instant case, the State has had ample opportunity to investigate and respond to the alleged events and since the criminal investigation w as suspended it has not reported on efforts made to shed light on the facts or responsibility for the events that occurred. 31. Accordingly, given the characteristics of this case, the lapse of time elapsed since the events covered in the petition, and the fact that the criminal investigation continues to remain suspended, the Commission feels that the exception provided in Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention regarding the delay in the development of the domestic criminal process is applicable, so that the requirement on exhausting domestic remedies cannot be enforced. 32. With respect to the proceedings in the disciplinary and contentious-administrative jurisdictions, the Commission has repeatedly maintained6 that such venues do not constitute suitable remedies for analyzing the admissibility of a complaint of the type currently before the Commission. The disciplinary jurisdiction does not constitute a sufficient venue for prosecuting, punishing, and making reparation for the consequences of potential violations of human rights. 3 IACHR, Report No. 99/09, Petition 12.335, Gustavo Giraldo Villamizar Durán, Colombia, October 29, 2009, para. 33. 4 Article 326 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Decree 2700 of 1991) states that “ The head of the prosecution unit may suspend the preliminary inquiry if, at the end of one hundred eighty days, there is insufficient cause either to institute the evidentiary phase of proceedings or to dismiss, w ith the prosecutor’ s authorization.” 5 I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C, No. 1 , 6 IACHR. Report No. 74/07 (Admissibility). José Antonio Romero Cruz et al. v. Colombia. October 15, 2 007. para. para. 93. 34.