they were deprived of their liberty. According to the State, this judicial decision would not exhaust domestic remedies, since there would still be the possibility of appeal and, after that, an indirect amparo proceeding. Similarly, the investigation into the alleged acts of torture was officially concluded on May 21, 2021 (supra para. 24). For this Court, it is evident that, since the domestic authorities have taken two decades to reach a decision in the context of the domestic criminal proceedings against the alleged victims in the case, this constitutes an unwarranted delay under the terms of Article 46(2)(c) of the Convention, which authorizes an exception to the exhaustion of remedies established in Article 46(1)(a) of the same instrument. This is all the more so if one considers that, according to the State, there are still remedies to be exhausted, such as the appeal and, subsequently, the indirect amparo (supra para. 23). 29. Finally, with regard to the State’s argument that the IACPPT does not expressly establish exceptions to the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies, this Court recalls that the American Convention is the instrument that regulates the procedure for a contentious case to be analyzed by the Commission and, eventually, for its submission to the Court within the framework of its contentious jurisdiction. For its part, Article 8 of the IACPPT states: “After all the domestic legal procedures of the respective State and the corresponding appeals have been exhausted, the case may be submitted to the international fora whose competence has been recognized by that State.” Furthermore, Article 16 of the IACPPT states: “This Convention shall not limit the provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights, other conventions on the subject, or the Statutes of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, with respect to the crime of torture.” Thus, the Inter-American Court usually analyzes a State’s international responsibility for the violation of personal integrity for alleged acts of torture on the basis of Article 5 of the Convention in conjunction with Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the IACPPT. Accordingly, it is reasonable to infer that the regulation of the contentious procedure before the organs of the Inter-American System to examine possible violations of the IACPPT is provided for in the American Convention, which, naturally, includes the provisions on exhaustion of domestic remedies and the exceptions thereto. 30. In view of the foregoing considerations, the Court dismisses this preliminary objection. V. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS 31. The State filed a preliminary objection regarding the “inadmissibility of the alleged violations against dignity and honor.” It argued, in particular, that the Inter-American Commission did not consider that the State had violated these rights in its Merits Report, but that the representatives of the alleged victims had invoked said violation in their pleadings and motions brief. It also submitted preliminary objections on the determination of the possible victims, and another regarding the determination of the facts and other alleged violations. 32. The Court notes that, in accordance with its consistent case law, these arguments do not constitute preliminary objections since their analysis cannot result in the inadmissibility of the case. The Court will now refer to these points in the following order: a) arguments of the State on the admissibility of the violations against honor and dignity; b) determination of the possible victims, and c) the new facts related to the political context. A. Arguments of the State on the admissibility of the violations against honor and dignity (Article 11 of the American Convention) A.1. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 33. The State argued that the Court should not proceed with the analysis of the alleged violations of Article 11 of the American Convention against Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz, regarding which the Commission had not found evidence of the probable responsibility of the -11-