10 46. However, the prior exhaustion requirement is applicable when adequate and effective remedies are actually available in the domestic legal system to remedy the alleged human rights violation. In this regard, Article 46.2 provides that the prior exhaustion rule is not applicable when (i) 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; (ii) 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, (iii) there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. 47. Based on legal precedent established by the Commission, in cases of alleged forced disappearances and violent deaths, investigation and criminal proceedings through ordinary legal procedures constitutes the suitable remedy to clarify the facts, prosecute those responsible and establish the appropriate criminal punishment, in addition to providing for other means of reparation. This investigation and criminal proceeding must be instituted ex officio by the State. 48. The Commission also notes that the criminal investigation in the ordinary justice system was opened on July 17, 1996 and February 11, 1997 respectively. After decisions were handed down on April 22 and July 12, 2009, a motion was filed to suspend the investigation of one of the defendants so it could proceed under Justice and Peace Law 975 of 2005. There have still been no final decisions issued in this case as at the present time. In light of this situation, the petitioners argued unwarranted delay in ruling on the case and, therefore, invoked the exception to the rule set forth under Article 46.2.c of the Convention. The State responded to this argument by claiming that the matter was complex because of the many facts and allegedly responsible persons involved. 49. The Commission recalls that when petitioners argue in favor of applying one of the exceptions established under Article 46.2 of the Convention, the burden is on the State to prove that said exception is not applicable in the particular instance. The Commission notes that the State only cited the complexity of the matter in general terms without stating the particular elements that would lead to the delay in the investigation, identification and punishment of those responsible and the direct link of such elements to the passage of time in this particular instance. 50. The Commission also notes that based on the information appearing in the case file as well as information available to the public, more than 17 years have elapsed since the time the alleged events occurred and, as yet, only two individuals have been identified as possibly responsible for the crimes. The investigation of one of these individuals was halted, while the investigation of the other individual has not proceeded to trial 8 years after being transferred to the procedure established under the Justice and Peace Law. 51. Consequently, and without prejudice to the merits of the matter, the Commission finds prima facie that the State has caused unwarranted delay and, therefore, the exception provided for in Article 46.2.c of the American Convention is applicable. 52. As for legal action brought before contentious administrative courts, the Commission has held that said procedure does not constitute a suitable remedy to examine admissibility of a petition in which facts are alleged such as those alleged in the instant case. Concretely, the Commission has said that administrative proceedings are a mechanism aimed at overseeing the administrative activity of the State, whereby it is only possible to obtain compensation for damages and losses caused by actions or