26 the violations due to the ineffectiveness of [the] remedies provided in it;” b) the State “alleges that the decision on admissibility adopted by the Commission [in Report N° 65/01], exercising the exclusive powers granted to it by the Convention [Articles 46 and 47], should be reviewed by the Court.” Articles 46 and 47 of the Convention provide that it is for the Commission to determine admissibility of a complaint or lack thereof, and exercising said authority, it analyzed -in depth and in a detailed manner- compliance with the requirements of the Convention regarding admissibility, and it decided to reject the objection filed by Honduras before the Commission regarding lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies, “pursuant to the principle of estoppel according to which the stages of the proceeding take place successively, by definitively closing each of them, and it is thus not possible to go back to procedural stages and moments that have already been concluded and completed;” c) habeas corpus “was ineffective to remedy the violations committed by the State of Honduras;” d) the Inter-American Commission established in its Report No. 65/01 that the exception set forth in Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention was applicable due to the unjustified delay in the criminal investigation undertaken by the Honduran court, as the steps taken in ten years of said proceeding were preliminary inquiries, investigation is in the stage of preliminary proceedings, and the process was suspended for over three years waiting for Ángel Belisario Hernández González to be captured; e) while the State listed and generically referred to the remedies set forth in the Honduran legal system, it did not refer to the grounds for their application and the effectiveness they might have to protect the rights abridged. Among said actions, the State mentioned civil action, which “is not suitable to obtain comprehensive reparation of the violations committed against Juan Humberto Sánchez, namely torture, illegal detention and extralegal execution, especially since they are attributable to the State and therefore it need not be exhausted.” Regarding the State’s argument that the aggrieved party can initiate penal action, it is “an attempt by the State to avoid its responsibility regarding exercise of penal action and an inadequate interpretation of the reinforcing nature of the regional system for protection of human rights;” and f) the State argues in its favor that one of the alleged perpetrators of the facts was recently captured; however, the crime being investigated, due to its characteristics, could not have been committed by a single person. In July, 1999, the judge hearing the domestic case ordered the file shelved until one of the alleged perpetrators appeared, when he should have continued the investigation to identify the other perpetrators. Pleadings of the representatives of the alleged victim 63. The representatives of the alleged victim, in turn, asked the Court to reject the preliminary objection raised by the State due to “the requirements regarding admissibility, both in terms of timeliness, adequacy and relevance. Their arguments were as follows: