exceptions to the general principle of exhaustion of domestic remedies: (a) when the domestic legislation of the State concerned does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right or rights that have allegedly been violated; (b) when the party alleging violation of his rights has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law or has been prevented from exhausting them; or (c) when there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. For those remedies to be adequate implies that they be: suitable to address an infringement of a legal right. A number of remedies exist in the legal system of every country, but not all are applicable in every circumstance. If a remedy is not adequate in a specific case, it obviously need not be exhausted. A norm is meant to have an effect and should not be interpreted in such a way as to negate its effect or lead to a result that is manifestly absurd or unreasonable.12 73. Before presenting this petition, the Lhaka Honhat Association filed an appeal for constitutional protection (amparo) with the Supreme Court of the Province of Salta, against that Province, asking the court to order immediate suspension of construction works on the Mision La Paz-Pozo Hondo bridge, and all other works (urban development, road construction) or changes to the Mision La Paz reserve or to fiscal lots 14 and 55. The provincial court rejected the application for "no innovation" on November 8, 1995, and on April 29, 1996 it rejected the motion for amparo. In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Salta held that, from an analysis of the presentation given and the elements supplied, it could not conclude that the Province's conduct had been manifestly illegal or arbitrary, given that the actions challenged consisted in the Province's carrying out decisions of the federal government which were not challenged by the petitioners. This pointed to the need to pursue ordinary channels that would allow greater possibility for debate and evidence. With respect to the injury that execution of those works might imply, and the disastrous environmental impact that they would have on the aboriginal communities, the Supreme Court of Salta held that, although those works and acts might affect the petitioners, there was no evidence that they went beyond what was reasonable. Subsequently, on May 14, 1996, the legal representatives of the Lhaka Honhat Association filed an extraordinary federal appeal against that ruling, which was also 12 I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 64.