4 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 22. Article 46.1.a of the American Convention stipulates, as a requirement for admission of a petition under the terms of Article 44 of that treaty, that remedies under domestic law have been exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. This is a procedural requirement of the Commission to give states an opportunity to be informed of alleged violations of a right protected in the framework of the American Convention so that they have the opportunity, if possible, to correct them within their jurisdiction before they are considered at the international level. 23. The same Convention stipulates that this provision shall not be applicable when domestic remedies are unavailable for de facto or de jure reasons. Specifically, Article 46.2 establishes exceptions to the general principle of exhaustion of domestic resources when: (a) the domestic legislation of the state concerned does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right or rights that have allegedly been violated; (b) the party alleging violation of his rights has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law or has been prevented from exhausting them; (c) there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. 24. Article 31.3 of the Inter-American Commission’s Rules of Procedure stipulates that when the petitioners allege an exception to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, it is up to the State to show that remedies under domestic law have not been previously exhausted, to indicate the appropriate recourse for redress, and to provide proof of its effectiveness. In this case, the State has not alleged the lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies, nor has it indicated the existence of other remedies that the petitioner should have invoked. 25. The petitioner has held that this case should be exempt from the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, as provided in Article 46.2.c of the American Convention, because of the unwarranted delay in investigating the facts and punishing those found responsible. She also alleged that there was no sufficient or adequate investigation. 26. The petitioner filed her complaint with the ordinary justice system on January 17, 1996, six days after her son’s death, and the case was archived in November 2002. The petitioner alleges that the authorities never conducted an investigation to clarify the facts of her son’s death and determine who is responsible for it. 27. According to the available information, the case was archived because six months had elapsed without starting the proceedings or identifying the accused. This was pursuant to Article 7 of Law 1444/99, which governs the transition period to the new criminal procedure system.2 28. Although Article 7 of Law 1444/99 states that an investigation can be reopened if the Public Prosecutor’s Office or the victim file specific charges, there is no information to indicate that after the archiving the State had made additional efforts to investigate. In this respect, the Commission notes that according to its doctrine: […] Whenever a prosecutable offense is committed, the State has the obligation to initiate and pursue the criminal proceeding to its ultimate consequences […]. […] Regarding crimes of public action, and even in those which may be prosecuted by a private actor, it is not valid to demand exhaustion of domestic remedies to the victim or the victim's relatives, for 2 That article states: Article 7°.- ARCHIVING: In proceedings with unidentified accused, the court shall order the case to be archived, unless within a period of six months the Public Prosecutor’s Office or the parties submit motions or conduct pertinent acts or investigations to keep it open. Files archived in this manner can serve as background documentation if the victim or the Public Prosecutor’s Office start a new action based on specific charges.