B. Admissibility Requirements 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies and time period for submitting the petition 24. The State alleges that the petitioners’ claim should be declared inadmissible in view of the failure to meet the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies, set forth at Article 46(1) of the Convention. The petitioners, for their part, allege that the criminal investigation has remained at the preliminary investigative stage for more than three years, and that therefore it is not an effective means for judging the persons responsible for the grave violations at issue in the present matter. 25. Article 46(2) of the Convention establishes that the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies does not apply when: a. 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. 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. there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. During the proceeding, the petitioners invoked the exception of unwarranted delay, based on the duration of the preliminary investigative stage. 26. Based on the information provided by both parties, during the preliminary investigation, which has lasted for four years and remains ongoing, arrest warrants were issued for several persons, including well-known leaders of the AUC. Nonetheless, despite the gravity of the facts alleged, said arrest warrants have not been executed, and at least one of the persons implicated has maintained daily contact with the press, and on occasion, with State authorities. This situation is a manifestation of delay. 27. In addition, no news has been forthcoming as to the implication of State agents in the investigation, and it was recognized that the proceedings aimed at collecting the necessary evidence have been suspended, due to the security situation in the area. The Commission considers that, as a general rule, a criminal investigation should be undertaken promptly to protect the victims’ interests, preserve the evidence, and even safeguard the rights of any person considered a suspect in the context of the investigation. As the Inter-American Court has indicated, while all criminal investigations must meet a series of legal requirements, the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies should not preordain international action on behalf of the victims to come to a halt or to be delayed to the point of being ineffective. 7 In the instant case, the prospects for an effective judicial investigation are not tantamount to those of a remedy that must necessarily be exhausted prior to seeking international protection for human rights. As the Inter-American Court has established, for a remedy to be considered effective, it must be capable of producing the result for which it was designed. 8 28. Therefore, given the characteristics and context of this case, the Commission considers that the exception provided for at Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention applies, and thus that the requirements of the American Convention as regards exhaustion of domestic remedies, and, accordingly, the six-month term for submitting the petition, do not apply. 2. Duplication of procedures and res judicata 29. It does not appear from the record that the subject matter of the petition is pending before any other international body for settlement. In its initial arguments, the State presented a 7 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987, para. 93. 8 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Judgment of July 29, 1988, para. 66. 5