exhausted, namely, the criminal proceeding and the action for direct reparation before the contentiousadministrative jurisdiction. 30. In the instant case, the State alleges that the petition does not satisfy the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies, provided for at Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention, given that if the petitioner considers that his right to reparation is not satisfied, he can file a tort action (acción de responsabilidad civil extracontratual), which prescribes 20 years after the date on which the facts occurred. As regards the contentious-administrative proceeding, the State indicates that it unfolded and concluded speedily even though the result was adverse to the petitioner’s claims. For its part, the petitioner argues that domestic remedies were exhausted on April 6, 2000 with the notification of the order denying the appeal in the contentious-administrative jurisdiction. 31. In view of the parties’ arguments, one must first clarify which domestic remedies need be exhausted in a case such as this, in light of the case-law of the inter-American system. The Commission observes that the petitioner’s claims refer to mainly to the denial, by the State, of any responsibility for the conduct of one of its agents in a military area. 32. In this respect, the precedents established by the Commission indicate that every time a crime is committed that the law requires be prosecuted sua sponte, the State is under an obligation to promote 8 and give impetus to the criminal proceeding and that in such cases this is the suitable means of clarifying the facts, prosecuting the persons responsible, and establishing the corresponding criminal sanctions, in addition to making possible other forms of pecuniary reparation. The Commission observes that the facts set forth by the petitioners in relation to the death of Carlos Arturo Uva translate in the domestic legislation into criminal conduct prosecutable sua sponte whose investigation and prosecution must be furthered by the State itself. In this respect, the Commission notes that by judgment of May 10, 1994, the regular criminal justice system convicted the person responsible for the death of Carlos Arturo Uva and sentenced him to 16 years in prison, and that ruling was affirmed on appeal on December 19, 1994. 33. In addition, the petitioner alleges having attempted to bring an action for direct reparation before the contentious-administrative jurisdiction, which was denied in the first instance and upheld by the Council of State on appeal, on March 30, 2000, by which “the criminal conviction on appeal was not attached to the 9 administrative proceeding.” He alleges that the Council of State had the authority and the obligation to order that evidence produced sua sponte and to attach the judgment to the contentious-administrative proceeding that was being carried out. For its part, the State argues that the decision of the Council of State was not based exclusively on the criminal judgment on appeal not having been attached to the proceeding but also considered that “… the criminal conviction does not necessarily lead to a finding of liability due to the fault the administration, accordingly there is an ostensible difference between the criminal liability deriving from the agent’s punishable act, which is personal, and that stemming from a 10 fault of the service, which is generally anonymous.” 34. As for the civil tort action, the Commission notes that Article 2341 of the Civil Code establishes: “One who has committed a delict or act of negligence, that has caused harm to another, is obligated to pay compensation, without prejudice to the principal penalty imposed by law on the act of negligence or delict committed.” In addition, Article 103 of the Criminal Code in force at the time of the facts established: “The punishable act gives rise to the obligation to make reparation for the material and moral injuries that result 11 from it.” And Article 108 established a limitations period of 20 years when the action is brought independent from the criminal proceeding. In this respect, the Commission observes that this action has not yet prescribed, nonetheless, nor does it appear that the alleged victim’s next-of-kin attempted to 8 IACHR, Report No. 52/97, Case 11,218, Arges Sequeira Mangas, Nicaragua, February 18, 1998, para. 96 and 97. See also IACHR, Report No. 55/97, Case 11,137, Juan Carlos Abella, Argentina, November 18, 1997, para. 392. 9 Initial petition received at the IACHR on October 5, 2000. 10 Brief of observations of the State DDH.GOI No. 22500/0932 of April 13, 2009, para. 17. 11 Criminal Code, Decree 100 of 1980. 6