2008, and, following the appeal presented by the presumed victim, the superior prosecutor confirmed that decision on October 15, 2008.20 24. Regarding the investigation into rape and abuse of authority, on January 9, 2009, the Ascope Criminal Judge of Preliminary Investigations of the Superior Court of Justice of La Libertad issued, at the request of the prosecution, an order to dismiss the proceedings.21 The presumed victim, constituted as “civil actor” in the criminal proceedings, filed a time-barred remedy of appeal against this decision.22 25. This Court recalls that the State has an obligation to investigate, ex officio, acts of torture such as those alleged in the instant case. 23 To examine the proper exhaustion of domestic remedies, in each case it is necessary to evaluate whether the person concerned (or other persons or entities on his behalf) had the possibility – and exercised it – of enabling the State to settle the matter by its own means using available remedies.24 The Court has also indicated that the obligation to exhaust domestic remedies does not signify the obligation to act as a special complainant or plaintiff in criminal proceedings.25 26. In this case, the presumed victim reported the facts, and this initiated the corresponding criminal investigation. The Court notes that the representatives and the Commission alleged various violations of due diligence in the investigation conducted in this case which led to the closure of the investigation owing to the dismissal of the case, and this allegedly resulted in the ineffectiveness of the remedies. An examination of these arguments involves an evaluation of the State’s actions in relation to its obligation to guarantee the rights recognized in the American Convention that are alleged to have been violated, and this is a matter that is closely related to the merits of the dispute. 26 Bearing in mind that the presumed victim reported the facts, which resulted in the State’s obligation to investigate them, ex officio, as well as the alleged violations of due process, the Court finds that the alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies is inextricably linked to the examination of due diligence in the criminal investigation. Therefore, it is a matter that must be examined when analyzing the merits of the dispute. Consequently, this preliminary objection is rejected. B. The subsidiary nature of the inter-American system B.1 Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 27. The State argued that, in light of the recommendations made by the Commission in the Merits Report, a new investigation into the facts had been opened and, therefore, “there was Cf. Public Prosecution Service. First Superior Criminal Prosecutor of La Libertad Judicial District . Decision of August 28, 2008 (evidence file, folios 2911 to 2912), and Public Prosecution Service. First Superior Criminal Prosecutor of La Libertad Judicial District . Decision of October 15, 2008 (evidence file, folio 636). 20 Cf. Ascope First Preliminary Investigation Court. La Libertad Superior Court of Justice. Order to dismiss the proceedings of January 9, 2009 (evidence file, folios 22 to 28). 21 22 Cf. Remedy of appeal filed by Azul Rojas Marín on January 22, 2009 (evidence file, folios 154 to 159). Cf. Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 159, and Case of Montesinos Mejía v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 27, 2020. Series C No. 398, para. 151. 23 Cf. Case of Galindo Cárdenas et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 2, 2015. Series C No. 301, para. 41. 24 Mutatis mutandis, Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 16. 25 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections, supra, para. 96, and Case of Jenkins v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2019. Series C No. 397, para. 23. 26 9