by the Court of Appeals has actually been produced. The petitioners assert that this failure to produce evidence prejudices the ability of Helen Mack to obtain access to domestic remedies to process all persons against whom there exist indicia of culpability. 32. The petitioners allege that, although a second proceeding has been opened to investigate the other persons responsible for the murder of Myrna Mack, this proceeding remains in its preliminary stage and no important progress has been made. 33. According to the petitioners, the circumstances of this case indicate that they have not had effective access to domestic remedies in their efforts to insure that all persons responsible for the death of Myrna Mack are properly tried. They argue that five years have passed since the first domestic proceedings were initiated and still no effective results have been obtained. They allege finally that this time lapse constitutes an unjustifiable delay in the domestic proceedings intended to judge the persons responsible for this crime of murder. V. ADMISSIBILITY A. Formal requirements 34. The petition fulfills the formal requirements of admissibility contained in Article 46(1)(d), and the same is not manifestly groundless or obviously out of order. 35. The Commission may consider the present case, because the petition alleges violations of human rights which are delineated in Articles 1(1), 4, 8 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights. The present case is within the competence of the Commission, pursuant to Article 44 of the Convention. 36. In accordance with Articles 46(c) and 47(d) of the Convention, the Commission has confirmed that the petition does not substantially reproduce a petition already studied by the Commission nor is the petition pending in any other international proceeding. 37. The requirement of Article 46(b) of the Convention, which establishes that a petition should be filed within a period of six months from the date on which the final judgment in the case was issued, does not apply in this case, because there still has not been issued a definitive judgment in the case. Applying Article 37(2) of the Regulations of the Commission, relating to exhaustion of domestic remedies, read in conjunction with Article 38(2) of the Regulations, the petition was presented within a reasonable period of time. Nor has the Government of Guatemala alleged the failure to comply with this requirement. B. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 38. Pursuant to Article 46(2) of the American Convention, the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies found in Article 46(1)(a) is not applicable in this case. Article 46(1)(a) specifies that admission of a petition requires that "remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law." However, pursuant to Article 46(2)(b), exhaustion is not required where "the party alleging violations of his rights has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law or has been prevented from exhausting them." Pursuant to Article 46(2)(c), the requirement of exhaustion does not apply where "there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment." In addition, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in relation to the exceptions to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies has held that, "[t]he rule of prior exhaustion must never lead to a halt or delay that would render international action in support of the defenseless victim ineffective." (I/A C.H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Preliminary Objections, Sentence of June 26, 1987. Series C, No. 1, para. 93). The nature and circumstances of the investigations and domestic criminal proceedings which have taken place in the instant case, as described above, make clear that the provisions of Article 46(2)(b) and (c) excuse exhaustion. 6