8 and search for truth and justice, and that it had taken actions to clarify the facts related to the persons who were detained and disappeared. It also indicated that the facts alleged in the petition had been clarified by the Peace Commission. For its part, the petitioner argued that even though the Executive had authorized investigations under Law 15,848, the Judicial branch has not issued a pronouncement that clarifies the official truth of the facts. The petitioner also alleged that the Peace Commission did not determine criminal or other liability, and based its investigation on confidential sources; moreover, according to data from some cases, the reliability of its conclusions is cast in doubt. Finally, it argued that even though it requested that the cases be reopened in 2005, the criminal law judges decided to archive the cases. 38. Both the Inter-American Commission and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights have indicated that one need only exhaust those remedies adequate to rectify the alleged violations.3 In this respect, the Commission observes that as the instant claim involves the alleged forced disappearances of two men and the alleged extrajudicial executions of three women, the suitable remedy for clarifying the facts is a criminal investigation to determine the truth of what happened and thereby to establish the responsibility of the state agents involved. 39. The Commission observes that based on the parties’ arguments, the criminal investigations were archived on December 19, 2006, with respect to the forced disappearance of Luis Eduardo González González, and on February 16, 2007, with respect to the extrajudicial executions of Diana Maidanic, Laura Raggio Odizzio, Silvia Reyes, and the forced disappearance of Oscar Tassino Asteazu. It also notes that the Peace Commission concluded in its 2003 final report that the remains of Luis Eduardo González González and Oscar Tassino Asteazu were buried in facilities of the armed forces. 40. Nonetheless, according to the facts alleged and taking into account what the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights and the Commission have concluded in other cases 4, the Commission considers that the criminal investigations opened in each case did not clarify the circumstances of the alleged forced disappearances and possible extrajudicial executions, considering that during the dictatorship of 1973 to 1985 in Uruguay and since the entry into force of Law 15,848 in 1986, the State had not guaranteed, through its laws, the right to the truth and access to justice. In addition, the Commission considers prima facie that the Peace Commission does not constitute a judicial remedy; accordingly, its conclusions cannot be taken into account for the purposes of complying with the prior exhaustion requirement. In this regard, the Commission considers that the exception to the exhaustion of domestic remedies provided for at Article 46(2)(a) 3 The I/A Court H.R. has determined that an adequate remedy is one that is suitable for protecting the legal situation impaired, such that remedies that do not have that effect or that are manifestly absurd or unreasonable need not be exhausted. I/A Court H.R. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, paras. 63 and 64. See IACHR, Report No. 4/12, Petition 4115-02, Admissibility, Ricardo Javier Kaplun and family, Argentina, March 19, 2012, para. 28, IACHR, Report No. 14/12, Petition 670-06, Admissibility, Carlos Andrés Rodríguez Cárdenas and family, Ecuador, March 20, 2012, para. 32. 4 The Commission observes that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, on handing down its judgment of February 24, 2011 in the case of Gelman v. Uruguay, concluded that “the Expiry Law lacks the effects because of its incompatibility with the American Convention and the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, in as much as it can impede the investigation and possible sanction of those responsible for serious human right violations.” See I/A Court H.R. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011. Series C No. 221, para. 253. It also notes that the Commission concluded since 1992 that “Law 15,848 of December 22, 1986, is incompatible with Article XVIII (Right to a Fair Trial) of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, and Articles 1, 8 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights.” IACHR, Report No. 29/92, Cases 10,029, 10,036, 10,145, 10,305, 10,372, 10,373, 10,374, and 10,375, Hugo Leonardo de los Santos Mendoza, Álvaro Balbi, Enrique Rodríguez Larreta Pieri, Noris Alejandra Menotti Cobas, Luis Alberto Estradet, Josefina Mirta Detta Paolino, Rita Ibarburu, Federico Martínez, Jorge Burgell, William Torres Ramírez, Guillermo Francisco Stoll, Osiris Elías Musso Casalas, Clarel de los Santos Flores, Juan Manuel Brieba, Felix Sebastián Ortíz, Amelia Sanjurjo Casal, and Antonio Omar Paitta, Uruguay, October 2, 1992, Operative paragraph 1.