28 Considerations of the Court 64. With respect to the admissibility requirements set forth in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention that are under discussion in the instant case, the Court reiterates its inherent authority to exercise its jurisdiction in toto in the proceeding followed before the bodies of the inter-American system for protection of human rights, without this involving review of the proceeding carried out before the Commission in a case that has been submitted to the Court.27 65. The broad terms of the wording of the Convention indicate that the Court exercises full jurisdiction over the matters pertaining to a case. The Court is therefore competent to decide whether any of the rights and liberties protected by the American Convention has been abridged, and to adopt appropriate measures derived from said situation; but it is also competent to rule on the procedural prerequisites that are the basis for its possibility of hearing a case, as well as to verify compliance with all procedural rules involving interpretation or application of the Convention.28 66. In accordance with the context of application of the American Convention and its object and purpose, rules pertaining to procedures must be applied on the basis of a criterion of reasonability, because otherwise, there would be an imbalance among the parties and realization of justice would be compromised.29 67. This Court deems that in the sub judice case there has been an unjustified delay in the decision regarding the aforementioned domestic remedies, because while the criminal court investigations began in October 1992, to date the direct perpetrators and those who instigated the extra-legal execution of Juan Humberto Sánchez have not been punished. Unjustified delay is an acknowledged exception to prior exhaustion of domestic remedies. As the Court has stated, under international jurisdiction what is essential is to maintain the necessary conditions to avoid diminishing or creating an imbalance in the procedural rights of the parties, and to attain the aims for which the various procedures were designed.30 In the instant case, since there was an unjustified delay in domestic remedies, the requirement of prior exhaustion does not apply as a condition for admissibility of the application. 68. Furthermore, in this regard, while the State attached copies of certain actions in the domestic court proceedings, in its communications to the Commission on April 6, 1993, July 14, 1997, and July 12, 1999, its argument on lack of exhaustion of 27 Cf. “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 11, 1997. Series C No. 32, paras. 17 and 19. 28 Cf. 19 Tradesmen Case. Preliminary Objection. Judgment of June 12, 2002. Series C No. para. 27; Constantine et al. Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 1, 2001. Series C 82, para. 71; Benjamin et al. Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 1, 2001. Series C 81, para. 71; and Hilaire Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 1, 2001. Series C No. para. 80. 93, No. No. 80, 29 Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.). Preliminary Objections. Judgment of January 25, 1996. Series C No. 23, para. 40. 30 Baena Ricardo et al. Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of November 18, 1999. Series C No. 61, para. 41; Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.). Preliminary Objections. Judgment of January 25, 1996. Series C No. 23, para. 42; and Gangaram Panday Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of December 4, 1991. Series C No. 12, para. 18.