41. According to the IACHR’s Rules of Procedure and the established jurisprudence of the interAmerican system, whenever a State alleges a failure to exhaust domestic remedies, it must indicate which remedies should have been pursued and, in addition, demonstrate that they are “suitable” for remedying the alleged violation: in other words, that the function of those resources within the domestic legal system is applicable to resolving the alleged human rights violations brought before the inter-American system. In addition, as the Inter-American Court has stated, it is not the task of the Commission “to identify ex officio which domestic remedies shall be exhausted, but instead it corresponds to the State to point out in a timely manner the domestic remedies that must be exhausted and their effectiveness. Likewise, it does not correspond to the international bodies to correct the lack of precision of the State’s arguments.”9 42. In the instant case, the Commission notes that the parties are in dispute regarding compliance with this requirement set by the Convention. In this regard, the State argues that the domestic remedies have not been exhausted since a criminal investigation into the facts alleged in the petition is still open. It maintains that in evaluating the reasonable time requirement, note should be taken that the case is complex on account of the series of factors already identified. Regarding the alleged massacre of March 2013, it reports that the prosecution service is conducting a preliminary inquiry. In turn, the petitioners contend that on repeated occasions they filed complaints and demanded effective measures to protect the Tagaeri and Taromenani peoples, together with determined measures to prevent future acts of violence. 43. The Commission notes that the alleged facts of the matter at hand involve the effective protection of the Tagaeri and Taromenani indigenous peoples and their ancestral territory, and that those indigenous peoples have chosen to remain in isolation from mainstream society and that they depend on the environment in which they live for their physical and cultural survival. In the case at hand, the petitioners allege that the continued absence of effective protective measures can be seen in the specific acts of violence committed against these peoples, such as the three alleged massacres in 2003, 2006, and 2013. 44. An analysis of the information and the documents submitted by the parties indicates that the available internal processes were initiated in order to protect the rights of these peoples. Thus, the Commission was told about prosecutorial investigations opened into each of the alleged massacres, in which the relevant state authorities were informed about the specific facts and circumstances that gave rise to the acts of violence against the Tagaeri and Taromenani, as well as about the alleged absence of effective protective measures. The IACHR notes that it does not have any information on the conclusions the investigating authority may have reached in the period of over 10 years since the first alleged massacre took place and, according to the information provided, the process was apparently still at its initial stage. 45. In addition, the IACHR notes that, according to claims made by the petitioners and not disputed by the State, between 2005 and 2006 alone ten complaints were filed with the prosecution service in Orellana in connection with situations purportedly affecting the isolated indigenous peoples and/or dealing with illegal logging, none of which had been allegedly pursued with due diligence. In addition, the IACHR was apprised of a series of communications sent by the petitioners to state authorities in connection with the need to adopt protective measures to address the violations of the isolated peoples’ rights reported to the IACHR, and it was informed that no reply was given to those communications, according to claims made by the petitioners and not disputed by the State (see paragraphs 16 and 21 supra). 46. Regarding the State’s claims about the complexity of the investigations into the facts alleged in the petition, the IACHR points out that although the complexity of a matter is one of the elements to be taken into consideration in assessing the reasonableness of the time taken with a given proceeding, under the established precedent of the agencies of the inter-American system, it must be shown that the duration of the proceedings is related to that situation and is not due to such factors as a lack of activity on the part of the state authorities.10 In the instant case, the IACHR notes, for the purposes of admissibility, that the information 9 I/A Court H. R., Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of June 30, 2009, Series C No. 197, para. 23. Citing: ECHR, Bozano v. France, Judgment of 18 December 1986, § 46, Series A No. 111. 10 I/A Court H. R., Case of Tibi v. Ecuador, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of September 7, 2004, para. 176; and Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of March 01, 2005, para. 69. 9