case in question must be carried out prior to and apart from the analysis on the merits of the matter, as it depends on a standard of examination that is different from the one used to determine a possible violation of articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. That is to say that the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies or of an exception to this requirement is developed in the analysis on the admissibility of the petition, without prejudice to whether in the report on the merits, the existence or nonexistence of violations of the articles of the American Convention on judicial guarantees and protections are analyzed. 39. In this case, the State argued that the petitioner failed to exhaust domestic remedies, meaning that the requirement established in Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention has not been met. It argued that in this case, the exception to this rule is not verified pursuant to the provision in Article 46(2)(c) given that pertinent judicial actions have not been taken and three individuals have been charged under the regular system of justice. For its part, the petitioner emphasized that more than 11 years have passed since the incidents referenced in the petition, the investigation remains in the preliminary phase without conclusive results. It reiterated that the investigation has been characterized by a lack of rigor, diligence, and thoroughness. For the petitioner, the progress made in recent years is late and does not represent conclusive results that would indicate that the State has adequately complied with its international obligations. 40. The Commission notes that the petitioner’s central allegations address both the possibility that State agents participated in the commission of the crimes of kidnapping, torturing, and sexually assaulting Jineth Bedoya, and the State’s failure the prevent, investigate, and punish these crimes as a consequence of its lack of due diligence, its gender discrimination and bias, and the resulting impunity. According to the scholarship on the Inter-American System, the appropriate and effective remedy in these matters is a criminal investigation and trial pursued through the criminal justice system. 3 41. The IACHR notes that the facts in this matter led to the opening of an investigation assigned in 2000 to the 6th National Unit for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law of the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation. Eleven years later and in response to the allegation of a lack of diligence in conducting the investigation, the petitioner requested the case be reassigned. The 49th National Human Rights Unit is now in charge of the case. The unit launched an investigation into the crimes of kidnapping and sexual violence and has been able to identify three suspects. According to the State, efforts have also been made to involve members of paramilitary groups in the facts in this case in the context of the proceedings carried out by the Justice and Peace Unit of the Office of the Public Prosecutor. According to the information available, as of the publication date of this report, the investigation remains in its preliminary stage. 42. The Commission observes that as a general rule, a criminal investigation should be carried out promptly in order to protect the interests of the victims, preserve the evidence, and even protect the rights of every individual who is considered a suspect in the context of the investigation. Also, as indicated by the InterAmerican Commission and the Inter-American Court in their earliest decisions, although all criminal investigations should meet a series of legal requirements, the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies should not stop or delay international action in the interest of victims to the point of uselessness. This rule is reinforced with the State obligation to combat with due diligence all forms of discrimination of and violence against women. 4 43. In this regard, and for the purposes of admissibility, the Commission considers that in this case, the period of 14 years during which the investigation has been in its preliminary phase does make it 3 IACHR, Report No. 52/97, Arges Sequeira Mangas, February 18, 1998, para. 96; and Report No. 2/10, Fredy Marcelo Núñez Naranjo et al., March 15, 2010, para. 29. 4 Cf. IACHR, Report No. 80/11, Case 12,626, Merits, Jessica Lenahan (Gonzales) et al., July 21, 2011. (United States), para. 110; IACHR, Report No. 28/07, Cases 12,496-12,498, Claudia Ivette González et al., (Mexico), March 9, 2007; IACHR, Report No. 54/01, Case 12,051, Maria Da Penha Maia Fernandes (Brazil), Annual Report of the IACHR 2001; IACHR, Access to justice for women victims of sexual violence in Mesoamerica, OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc. 68 (January 20, 2007); Inter-American Court Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205; Inter-American Court. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010. Series C No. 215, and Inter-American Court. Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216.