25. The Commission considered that the exception to the exhaustion of domestic remedies contemplated in Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention regarding the criminal proceedings 34 and the alleged acts of torture is applicable in this case. 35 As for the violation of the right to personal liberty due to the excessive duration of the pretrial detention, it argued that García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar filed numerous appeals against the formal order of imprisonment and also requested a diffuse control of conventionality ex officio with respect to the actions of the court and prosecutor’s office involved, without such remedies proving effective to resolve their situation. 26. The representatives asked the Court to dismiss the objection regarding the delay in the proceedings, which the State alleged was due to the procedural conduct of the alleged victims. They considered that this is not only contrary to the criteria established by this Court, but also that such an assertion is not consistent with the truth of the matter and is in itself re-victimizing. They added that the remedies allegedly offered by the State have not been substantively effective, since for 17 years they prevented alternatives to imprisonment, impeded the right to a fair trial – with the guarantees of due process and the exclusion of unlawful evidence - and were not effective or timely in the investigation of torture. In turn, they considered it incongruous that the alleged victims should still have to exhaust other remedies, when it has been demonstrated that, over 20 years, the justice system and the multiplicity of remedies have proven ineffective and inadequate. Regarding the alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies with respect to the IACPPT, they argued that, according to the Court’s consistent case law, the analysis of international responsibility for the violation of personal integrity based on Article 5 of the American Convention, is carried out jointly with Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the IACPPT. B.2. Considerations of the Court 27. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention establishes that, in order to determine the admissibility of a petition or communication submitted to the Commission pursuant to Articles 44 or 45 of this instrument, the remedies under domestic law must have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. 36 However, this implies that not only must such remedies formally exist, but they must also be adequate and effective, as is clear from the exceptions provided for in Article 46(2) of the Convention. 37 In particular, the Court recalls that Article 46(2)(c) of the Convention states that the provisions on exhaustion of domestic remedies shall not apply when “there has been an unwarranted delay in rendering final judgment under the aforementioned remedies.” 28. Regarding the preliminary objection filed by the State, the Court notes that the first instance judgment against the alleged victims was issued on May 12, 2022, that is, almost 20 years after 34 The Commission explained that, at the time when the petition’s admissibility was being considered, fourteen years had elapsed since the alleged victims had been detained, without a final judgment having been handed down to put an end to the criminal proceedings to which they were linked. It added that according to the information provided by the State, the judicial proceeding is still ongoing, with a first instance decision having been issued on May 12, 2022. 35 It recalled that, in the case of Reyes Alpízar, even though the facts were promptly denounced shortly after his arrest and the Mexican State was aware of these complaints, the corresponding criminal investigation did not begin until five years later. With respect to García Rodríguez, the Commission noted that, from his initial statement, made on the same day he was arrested, the victim reported that he had been threatened in order to make him incriminate himself in exchange for his family members not being placed in arraigo. However, the Commission noted that the first investigative actions, particularly the medical assessments, did not take place until 2015. 36 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 85; Case of the Teachers of Chañaral and other Municipalities v. Chile. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 10, 2021. Series C No. 443, para. 24, and Case of Angulo Losada v. Bolivia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of November 18, 2022. Series C No. 475, para. 20. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 63, and Case of Moya Solís v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 3, 2021. Series C No. 425, para. 24. 37 -10-