35. The State considers that the exercise of the defendant’s right to defense requires time and, to some extent, controls the case. The defendant’s pleas, appeals, challenges and other proceedings prevent other decisions being adopted because the case is blocked by the various appeals; nevertheless, this shows that he is exercising his legal rights. The time taken by these measures cannot be attributed to the Judiciary. 36. Furthermore, it mentions that the purpose of the delay was so that justice should be done. In the process, proceedings were revoked and the case was recommenced twice due to the exercise of the defendant’s right to defense and because of the State’s control of decisions. VI. JURISDICTION 37. The petitioner has locus standi to appear before the Commission because the facts occurred in Argentine territory. The State has not disputed the petitioner’s competence to act or the Commission’s competence to examine the matter. Consequently, the Commission declares that it is competent to investigate the complaint. VII. ADMISSIBILITY A. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 38. The Commission observes that the State disagrees with the application of the exceptions to the rule of the exhaustion of remedies set forth in Article 46.2.a, as regards the existence in the domestic legislation of the State concerned of the due process of law for the protection of the rights that have allegedly been violated; and in Article 46(2)(c) as regards the unwarranted delay in rendering final judgement under the aforementioned remedies. 39. According to jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the State has the burden of proof in relation to the exhaustion of remedies in each case: "the State claiming nonexhaustion has an obligation to prove that domestic remedies remain to be exhausted and that they are effective". 1 40. The State has not disputed that there has been a delay in pursuing the criminal action to investigate the facts, but maintains that this has been justified for different reasons, among these, the exercise of the defendant’s right to defense and the interest that justice should be done. In this respect, the Commission observes that over seven years have elapsed since April 1991. It is clear from the description of the steps taken in Argentina to determine the circumstances of the arrest and death of Walter Bulacio that the investigation has not resulted in those responsible being punished. Consequently, prima facie, there has been an unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgement in the present case. 2 41. The Commission considers that it is not necessary to give an opinion on the exception established in Article 46(2)(a), as the exception to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies set forth in Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention is applicable. B. Characterization of the violations of the rights guaranteed in the Convention 1 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgement of June 26, 1987, Series C, Nº 19, par. 88. 2 When analyzing the admissibility of petitions where there is an alleged delay in judgements in criminal procedures, the European Commission on Human Rights has considered that prima facie, the delay was excessively long in the following cases: 17 years for the Trier proceedings in the Eckle case; over 12 years in the Huber case; 12 ½ years in the Baggetta case; nearly 10 ½ years for the Cologne proceedings in the Eckle case; 9 years in Milasi; 7 years in Neumeister and 5 ½ years in the Ventura case. Cited by Stavros, Stephanos. "The Guarantees for Accused Persons under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights". International Studies in Human Rights. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 92. 6