16 remedy known as the “National Reparations Program” (PNR). 45. In this regard, the Court observes that the initial petition before the Commission was lodged on December 13, 2007, and forwarded to the State on July 14, 2008. The State’s response was received on September 10, 2008. At that time, the State indicated that “the administrative and judicial remedies available in the domestic system have not been exhausted […].” 25 It explained that the criminal inquiries were in the investigative phase and that it would continue to investigate “the causes that led to the delay in the proceedings already indicated,” 26 and stated that there were other administrative remedies available, such as the PNR, which had not been exhausted. Thus, the Court notes that the State did not mention the availability of the remedy of habeas corpus in its brief, nor at any time during the admissibility stage before the Commission. Therefore, this argument of the State is time-barred. 46. As to the second argument, the Court has already established in the previous paragraph that it was presented at the appropriate procedural opportunity. However, the State did not explain to the Court the reasons why the National Reparations Program would be an adequate, suitable and effective remedy to redress the specific violations alleged in the instant case over which this Court has jurisdiction (supra para. 24), beyond stating that it was created as an administrative remedy “to provide individual and/or collective reparations to civilian victims of human rights violations that occurred during the internal armed conflict, which includes material and psychological support for the families of deceased victims and surviving victims.” 27 In any case, the Court considers that, in cases such as this, in which serious human rights violations are alleged, the filing of a criminal complaint is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention. 28 47. In view of the foregoing, the Court dismisses the preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies. D. Objection regarding the lack of authority to file another claim for the same facts D.1. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 48. The State asked the Court to refrain from hearing the instant case, “since most of the alleged victims have already been compensated [through the National Reparations Program] and also because they signed a settlement agreement in which they agreed not to file any other claim against the State in the future.” 49. The Commission did not refer specifically to this point. The representatives argued that “Guatemala has not provided fair, decent and comprehensive reparation for the consequences of all the human rights violations committed against the [alleged] victims [and] survivors […] because the [PNR] does not meet accepted international standards of reparation.” D.2. Considerations of the Court 50. By virtue of the principle of complementarity, 29 as long as domestic bodies have adequately Brief of the State of September 10, 2008 (evidence file, folio 2954). Brief of the State of September 10, 2008 (evidence file, folio 2954). 27 Answering brief of the State (merits file, folio 1042), and brief of the State of April 28, 2010 (evidence file, folio 3220 and 3221). 28 See, Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, para. 194, and Case of Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, paras. 242 to 244. 29 The Court has held that under the Convention, State responsibility can only be determined at international level after the State has had the opportunity to declare the violation and repair the harm caused by its own means. This is based on the principle of complementarity (or subsidiarity), that transversely informs the inter-American system of human rights, which is, as stated in the preamble to the Convention, “reinforcing or complementing the protection offered by the domestic law of the American States.” Cf. Case of Tarazona Arrieta, Preliminary objection, merits, 25 26