37. The petitioner’s allegations indicate that after the operation of the statute of limitations, the petitioner sought to impose a fine on the judges because of the lack of timely handling, which claim was denied on November 10, 2005, as it was deemed irrelevant. The complainant did not file an appeal against the operation of the statute of limitations with the Superior Court in that this would only have achieved confirmation of the order being challenged, given that the statute of limitations operated de jure, based on the passage of time. The petitioner felt that that appeal would be ineffective for prosecuting the alleged perpetrators of medical malpractice. 38. In addition, the petitioner alleges that the proceeding to recuse the judge and the suit for damages and injury were not filed because they are designed to suspend or terminate the competence of the judge in a case and to obtain other reparations, respectively, and not to prevent or punish a crime and prevent impunity. 39. For purposes of the admissibility of the instant case, the Commission notes that the suitable remedy for resolving the matter that is the subject of the complaint is the criminal proceeding. Ecuadorean law defines medical malpractice in its Penal Code, and as an exception, it requires that said public proceeding be initiated through an individual accusation. Given that said proceeding is public in nature, it should be pursued ex officio. 40. The criminal proceeding filed by the mother of the alleged victim, representing her daughter, lapsed when the statute of limitations operated after five years as established by law. During that period, the complainant filed two briefs disputing the procedural delay and three ex parte requests that the public prosecution proceeding be conducted. The Commission’s jurisprudence recognizes that whenever a crime that must be pursued ex officio is committed, the State has the obligation to promote and pursue the criminal process until its final results22 and that, in such case, this constitutes the suitable route for clearing up the facts, prosecuting those responsible, and establishing the respective criminal punishment, in addition to making possible other monetary means of reparation. The Commission considers that the facts alleged by the petitioners in the instant case involve alleged violations of fundamental rights, which violations are reflected in domestic law as crimes to be prosecutedex officio and thus it is this proceeding, conducted by the State itself, which should be considered for purposes of determining the admissibility of the complaint. 41. The Commission notes that the State has not demonstrated that the exhaustion of the appeal regarding the operation of the statute of limitations, the recusal proceeding, and the proceeding for damages and injury could be conducive to clearing up the facts and prosecuting and punishing those responsible for the medical malpractice that caused the damage in question. In addition, the Commission considers that the State has not presented information to dispute the allegations of the petitioner regarding the futility of the appeal with respect to the operation of the statute of limitations. 42. The inability to exhaust domestic remedies in the administration of justice is one of the reasons why Article 46.2 establishes exceptions to the exhaustion of domestic remedies as a requirement for invoking international protection, precisely in situations in which, for various reasons, said remedies are not effective. 43. The invocation of the exceptions to the rule of exhausting domestic remedies as provided in Article 46.2 of the Convention is closely tied to the determination of possible violations of certain rights enshrined therein, such as guarantees on access to justice. However, Article 46.2, based on its nature and purpose, is a rule the content of which is autonomous vis à vis the substantive rules of the Convention. Therefore, the determination as to whether the exceptions to the rule of exhausting domestic remedies are applicable to the case in question should be made prior to and separate from the analysis of the merits of the case, in that it 22 Report No. 52/97, Case 11.218, Arges Sequeira Mangas, Annual Report of the IACHR 1997, paras. 96 and 97. See also Report No. 55/97, para. 392. Report No. 62/00, Case 11.727, Hernando Osorio CorreaAnnual Report of the IACHR 2000, para. 24. 8