8 contravene this assertion and even confirmed the presentation of all the appeals that the petitioners alleged they had exhausted. 35. Both the Commission and the Inter-American Court have stated that only those remedies adequate to redress the violations allegedly committed must be exhausted.3 In cases such as the instant one, which involve possible crimes that are publicly actionable, that is, those that can be prosecuted officially, particularly when agents of the State are implicated in the offenses, the State is under the obligation to investigate them. In any case, therefore, the State is the holder of the punitive action and of the obligation to promote and pursue the various procedural stages, in fulfillment of its obligation to guarantee the right to justice. This burden must be borne by the State as its own legal duty, and not as an instrument of the interests of individuals, and it may not be contingent upon the initiative of those individuals or evidence they provide.4 36. In the present case, the Commission observes prima facie that the relatives of the presumed victim not only promoted the criminal investigation, they also lodged various appeals against the judgment of August 5, 1999, that dismissed the case, the complaint constituting the last appeal filed in a sequence of appeals aimed at correcting the violations allegedly committed. In this regard, the Commission considers that domestic remedies were exhausted in accordance with the provisions of Article 46.1.a of the American Convention. 2. Timeliness of the petition 37. In accordance with the provisions of Article 46.1.b of the American Convention, in order for a petition to be declared admissible, it must be lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the party alleging violation of his or her rights was notified of the final judgment. 38. In the instant case, since the judgment of December 18, 2001, which ruled on the complaint appeal (recurso de queja), was reported to the relatives of the presumed victim on December 28, 2001, and the petition was submitted on June 6, 2002, the Commission finds that the period of six months provided for in Article 46.1.b of the American Convention is satisfied. 3. Duplication of proceedings and international res judicata 39. The case file of the petition contains no information that could lead to the determination that the petition is pending settlement in another international proceeding, nor that it has previously been decided by the Commission. Therefore, the IACHR concludes that the exceptions provided for in Article 46.1.c and Article 47.d of the American Convention are not applicable. 4. Characterization of the facts alleged 3 The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has determined that an adequate remedy is one that is suitable for protecting the infringed legal right; thus, remedies that do not have any effect or are manifestly absurd or unreasonable need not be addressed. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez vs. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, par. 63, and Report No. 4/12, Petition 4115-02, Admissibility, Ricardo Javier Kaplun and family, Argentina, March 19, 2012, par. 28. 4 See IACHR, Report No. 68/08, Petition 231-98, Admissibility, Ernesto Travesi, Argentina, October 16, 2008, par. 32, and Report No. 4/12, Petition 4115-02, Admissibility, Ricardo Javier Kaplun and family, Argentina, March 19, 2012, par. 30.