produce an effect and cannot be interpreted in the sense that it does not produce one or its results 3 are manifestly absurd or irrational. 25. The Commission notes that because this complaint involves the alleged responsibility of agents of the State in the alleged detention and execution of a civilian, the appropriate remedy for shedding light on the facts is a criminal investigation in the regular courts for the purpose of establishing the criminal 4 responsibility of the agents of the State involved. The Commission also notes that the alleged facts relating to the alleged extrajudicial execution of Elio Gelves Carrillo are defined in Colombian law as criminal conduct prosecutable ex officio that should be investigated and prosecuted by the State itself. 26. In the instant petition, the State does not allege failure to exhaust the domestic remedies and maintains that based on the alleged facts proceedings were diligently conducted at the domestic level in the military criminal, administrative-contentious, and disciplinary jurisdictions. For their part, the petitioners allege that the exception provided in Article 46.2. a) and b) of the American Convention is applicable, in that the investigation of the facts was conducted in the military criminal jurisdiction, which does not constitute an effective remedy. 27. In this petition, following the events of May 27 1997, an investigation was launched in the military criminal jurisdiction on May 8, 1998. Simultaneously, Delegate Prosecutor’s Office 40 initiated a preliminary investigation and on July 30, 1998 raised the issue of a conflict of jurisdiction with the military criminal jurisdiction. On January 28, 1999 the Superior Council of the Judiciary settled the conflict of jurisdictions in favor of the military criminal jurisdiction. On April 23, 2001 the First Instance Judge declared the investigation closed; a decision that after being appealed was upheld on March 6, 2002 by the Superior Military Court. 28. In this regard, the Commission has repeatedly ruled to the effect that special jurisdictions, like the military jurisdiction, do not constitute an appropriate forum and thus do not offer an adequate remedy for investigating, prosecuting, and punishing possible violations of the human rights enshrined in the 5 American Convention, such as the right to life, allegedly committed by members of law enforcement. The same reasoning has been systematically applied by other relevant international human rights 6 bodies. 29. The Commission notes that more than 14 years have passed since the events occurred and since the conflict of jurisdiction raised by Delegate Prosecutor’s Office 40, the facts that are the subject of this petition have still not been investigated or decided in the ordinary criminal jurisdiction, which would provide the appropriate remedy. In view of the preceding, the complaint falls within the exception to the exhaustion of domestic remedies provided in Article 46.2.b) of the American Convention establishing that said exception applies 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.” The Commission also notes an unwarranted delay under the terms of Article 46.2.c) and as a result the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies cannot be required. 30. Regarding the complaint filed with the PGN by the President of the Municipal Council of Fortul, which ended with the permanent archive of the preliminary disciplinary inquiry, it should be noted 3 I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Judgment of July 29, 1988, Series C, No. 4, para. 63. See IACHR. Report No. 57/00 La Granja Case, Ituango v. Colombia, October 2, 2000. 4 IACHR, Report No. 8/11, Anibal Aguas Acosta, March 22, 2011, para. 30. 5 IACHR, Report No. 64/01, Petition 11.712, Leonel de Jesús Isaza Echeverry et al., Colombia, April 6, 2001, para. 22. See also, I/A Court H.R., Durand and Ugarte Case. Judgment of August 16, de 2000, Series C, No. 68, para. 117; Cesti Hurtado Case. Judgment of September 29, 1999, Series C, No. 65, para. 151. See also IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Chile, September 27, 1985, pp. 199-200. OAS/Ser.L/V/II.66 doc. 17; IACHR, Annual Report 1996, March 14, 1997, p. 688. IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Ecuador, April 24, 1997, p. 36. IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Brazil, September 29, 1997, p. 50. 6 See United Nations Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2000/44, The Administration of Justice and Human Rights, August 15, 2000, para. 30; and 1995 Report, Special Rapporteur on Torture. UN Doc. E/CN.4/1995/34, January 2, 1995, para. 76(g). 5