under domestic law or has been prevented from exhausting them; and (c) there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. 21. In this case, the petitioners establish that the exception to the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies envisaged in Article 46(2)(c) is applicable because more than 30 years after the massacre at Los Josefinos and 18 years since the investigation began, little significant progress has been made in the latter. For its part, the State indicates that "to the extent of its possibilities” it will effectively pursued all the steps and, therefore, that the investigations should be allowed to run their course. 22. In that regard, the Commission notes that the precedents it has established indicate that when a publicly actionable offense is committed, the State has the obligation to institute criminal proceedings and pursue them,4 and that in such cases criminal proceedings are the suitable means to clarify the facts, try those responsible, and establish the suitable criminal penalties. Furthermore, 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.5 23. The allegations in the instant case refer to alleged publicly actionable offenses. Therefore, the criminal proceedings advanced by the State should be considered for the purposes of determining the admissibility of the complaint. Taking into account the positions of the parties and based on the information in the case file, the Commission finds that the judicial proceeding in connection with the events in this case began on January 16, 1996, with the presentation by FAMDEGUA of a petition for a preliminary evidentiary hearing to the Criminal Court of First Instance of the Department of Petén (Juzgado de Primera Instancia del Ramo Penal del Departamento del Petén), and a request for the exhumation of the corpses from the clandestine grave site at Los Josefinos in order to determine the identities of the persons to whom they belonged and the cause of death. The Commission notes that on April 18, 1996, the Public Prosecution Service's District Prosecutor's Office (Fiscalía Distrital del Ministerio Público), based in Santa Elena Petén, opened a criminal investigation “against whomsoever should prove responsible” (No. 805-96); on December 3, 2010, the Public Prosecution Service requested the Supreme Court of Justice to transfer the case to High-Risk Criminal Court “A” of First Instance of Guatemala Department, where the case currently rests, numbered C-1076-2011-0003. 24. Given the characteristics of this case, the procedures carried out in the framework of the proceeding—mainly consisting of requests for information to public entities and statements by witnesses— and considering that, despite the fact that more than 30 years have passed since the events that are the subject of the petition and more than 19 years since the investigation began, no significant progress has been made by which to identify and prosecute those allegedly responsible, the Commission finds to be applicable the exception provided in Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention as regards unwarranted delay in domestic judicial proceedings. Therefore, the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies can be set aside. 25. Finally, the Commission must indicate that the application of the exceptions to the prior exhaustion rule, provided for at Article 46(2) of the Convention is closely linked to the determination of the alleged violations of substantive rights set forth in the Convention, such as the guarantees of access to justice. However, Article 46(2), by its nature and purpose, is a self-contained provision vis á vis the substantive provisions contained in 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. C. Time period to file the petition 4 IACHR, Report 56/14, p. 886-04, Ronal Jared Martínez Velásquez and Marlón Fabricio Hernández Fúnez, July 21, 2014, par. 20; IACHR, Report No. 51/10, P. 1166-05, Admissibility, Tibú Massacres, Colombia, March 18, 2010, par. 110; IACHR. Report No. 52/97, Case 11.218, Arges Sequeira Mangas, Nicaragua, pars. 96 and 97, Report No. 62/00, Case 11.727, Hernando Osorio Correa, par. 24. 5IACHR, Report No. 51/10, P. 1166-05, Admissibility, Tibú Massacres, Colombia, March 18, 2010, par. 110. 5