complementary indemnification to the opposing party in a mortgage foreclosure procedure, 13 a process governed by the principle under which the private interests of the parties delimit the scope and extent of the proceedings (a principle locally referred to as “principio dispositivo”). The petition in this instance, by contrast, involves a criminal proceeding originated by a complaint filed in connection with a publicly actionable offense, the responsibility for the investigation of which fell, as stated above, to the State. 41. It is worth noting, therefore, the different standard of appreciation in assessing exhaustion of domestic remedies that, in keeping with the precedents set by this Commission, applies in cases where the specific duty to advance the proceedings belongs to the State, as well as the degree of responsibility that individuals have in the progress of criminal investigations. Indeed, the IACHR has also held that in procedural regimes where the victim or their relatives have standing to take part in a criminal suit, its exercise is not compulsory, but optional and in no way is a substitute for the State���s actions. 14 In other words, as the Commission has concluded, neither victims nor their relatives can be required to assume the task of exhausting domestic remedies where that obligation pertains to the State.15 The foregoing notwithstanding, the IACHR notes the persistence of the relatives of Cristina Britez Arce in seeking full clarification of the facts to the extent of their possibilities by participating and filing of appeals in the criminal proceeding for manslaughter as well as in the various criminal proceedings that were instituted thereafter. 42. Secondly, it should be borne in mind that the Commission has already held that the extraordinary federal appeal available in the Argentine legal system—the remedy to which the State refers— is an extraordinary remedy and its exercise is exceptional and discretionary.16 As such, it is not a procedural level that is added on to every trial, but rather it operates as a new but reduced and partial procedural level that exists to ensure constitutional supremacy and whose propriety is interpreted within a restricted scope.17 Therefore, the Commission does not necessarily require its exhaustion; 18 indeed, depending on the circumstances in each instance, a large number of petitions have been declared admissible in the past without that remedy having been filed. 19 In this case, that appeal was filed but the alleged circumstances that supposedly prevented its exhaustion are part of the supporting arguments of the petition. 43. The Commission recalls a previous case in which, upon deciding on the admissibility of petition 920-03—also against Argentina—the IACHR had to examine a very similar situation concerning exhaustion of domestic remedies. Specifically, in that petition, the extraordinary federal appeal lodged by the petitioners had been declared “time-barred” because it was filed 10 minutes after the established deadline, as results of which the petitioners argued that the authorities were “excessively formal” in declaring that the 13 IACHR, Report No. 6/98, Case 10.382, Ernesto Máximo Rodríguez, Argentina, February 21, 1998, para. 48. 14 IACHR, Report No. 52/97, Case 11.218, Merits, Arges Sequeira Mangas, Nicaragua, Annual Report of the IACHR 1997, para. 97. In the same connection, see: IACHR, Report No. 99/14, Petition 446-09. Admissibility, Luis Alberto Rojas Marín. Peru, November 6, 2014, para. 44; IACHR, Report No. 43/13. Petition 171-06, Admissibility, YGSA, Ecuador, July 11, 2013, para. 30; IACHR, Report No. 1/11, Admissibility, Saúl Filormo Cañar Pauta, Ecuador, January 4, 2011, para. 30; IACHR, Report No. 2/10, Petition 1011-03, Admissibility, Fredy Marcelo Núñez Naranjo et al., Ecuador, March 15, 2010, para. 31. 15 IACHR, Report No. 42/02, Admissibility, Petition 11.995, Mariela Morales Caro et al. ("La Rochela" Massacre), Colombia, October 9, 2002, para. 32; IACHR, Report No. 62/00, Case 11.727, Hernando Osorio Correa, Colombia, October 3, 2000, para. 24; IACHR, Report No. 63/99, Case 11.427 Víctor Rosario Congo, Ecuador, April 13, 1999, para. 93. 16 IACHR, Report No. 17/06, Petition 531-01, Admissibility, Sebastián Claus Furlan and Family, Argentina, March 2, 2006, para. 39; IACHR, Report No. 69/08, Petition 681-00, Admissibility, Guillermo Patricio Lynn, Argentina, October 16, 2008, para. 41. 17 IACHR, Report No. 55/97, Case 11.137, Juan Carlos Abella, Argentina, November 18, 1997, pars. 264 and 265. IACHR, Report No. 26/08, Petition 270-02, Admissibility, César Alberto Mendoza et al., Argentina, March 14, 2008, para. 72; IACHR, Report No. 83/09, Case 11.732, Merits, Horacio Anibal Schillizzi Moreno, Argentina, August 6, 2009, para. 62. 18 19 IACHR, Report No. 12/106, Admissibility, Case 12.106, Enrique Hermann Pfister Frías and Lucrecia Pfister Frías, Argentina, March 16, 2010, para. 39; IACHR, Report No. 117/06, Petition 1070-04, Admissibility, Milagros Fornerón and Leonardo Aníbal Javier Fornerón, Argentina, October 26, 2006, para. 42; IACHR, Report No. 17/06, Petition 531-01, Admissibility, Sebastián Claus Furlan and Family, Argentina, March 2, 2006, para. 40; IACHR, Report No. 104/99, Case 11.400, Eolo Margaroli and Josefina Ghiringhelli de Margaroli, Argentina, October 27, 1999. 8