information presented by the petitioners regarding domestic remedies. The technical requirements for admission have therefore been met, and the Commission concludes that the State was not placed at a procedural disadvantage in arguing the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies. 55. The State argues, as a substantive matter, that the applicable domestic remedies have not been exhausted in this case and that no exception to the requirement of exhaustion has been established. Pursuant to Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention, the Commission may not find a case admissible unless "the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law." Article 46(2) sets forth several exceptions to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies where effective remedies do not exist or where access to effective remedies has been unavailable or has been delayed as a matter of law or fact. The jurisprudence of the Court has established that, "the State claiming non-exhaustion has an obligation to prove that domestic remedies remain to be exhausted and that they are effective."27 56. The State asserts that the criminal judicial system of Colombia provides for suitable remedies for the violations alleged by the petitioners. The State notes, for example, that the Colombian Penal Code criminalizes homicide and provides for an increased penalty in cases of homicide of public officials, politicians and candidates for election.28 57. The petitioners have argued that the State has not discharged its burden of demonstrating that adequate and effective domestic remedies exist to address the persecution of the Patriotic Union and that those remedies have not been exhausted. They therefore argue that an exception to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies applies, and that it was therefore unnecessary to demonstrate that the victims listed in this case attempted to exhaust domestic remedies. 58. The petitioners first assert that adequate domestic remedies do not exist, because Colombian legislation does not establish the crime of genocide. They argue that there exists no domestic remedy to address the genocide which they allege forms the subject of this case. 59. The Commission has concluded that the facts and violations alleged in this case do not, as a matter of law, constitute genocide. The failure of Colombian law to criminalize genocide thus does not imply the nonexistence of a domestic remedy to address the violations at issue in this case. 60. However, the petitioners submitted further information to establish the ineffectiveness of the domestic remedies provided for under domestic law and the resulting application of an exception to exhaustion. As set forth above, the petitioners offered evidence with their petition showing that, at the time of the submission of the petition, only ten criminal cases initiated in relation to the violence against the Patriotic Union had been resolved and almost none had resulted in the sanction of those responsible.29 The State has never alleged that this information was inaccurate. During the processing of this case, the petitioners have continued to provide the Commission with additional lists of members of the Patriotic Union who have been extrajudicially executed or who have been subjected to other persecution. The State has still not offered any information regarding the successful investigation or prosecution of any of the grave incidents of persecution against the members of the Patriotic Union.30 61. The Court has made clear that "the mere fact that a domestic remedy does not produce a result favorable to the petitioner does not in and of itself demonstrate" the inexistence of effective 27 I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 26 June 1987. Series C No. 1, par. 88 (emphasis added). 28 See, e.g., Response of Government of June 3, 1994. 29 See Report of the Ombudsman at 43, 70. 30 In relation to this point, the Commission notes that the State has the nonderogable and nondelegable duty to prosecute public action crimes ("delitos de acción pública"), crimes for which the State has exclusive power to prosecute, in order to preserve public order and ensure the right to justice. In those cases, therefore, the victim and his family members cannot be required to exhaust domestic remedies. The State, through its prosecutorial and judicial bodies, must apply the criminal laws, initiating and moving a case forward through its various procedural stages to completion. 9