6 law, as a requirement for the admission of complaints regarding the alleged violation of the Convention. For its part, Article 46.2 of the Convention provides that the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies requirement 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. 25. In the matter under review, the account in the petition and information provided indicate that the petitioner alleges judicial delay in the investigation and punishment of the acts of torture reported by him. For its part, the State alleges a failure to exhaust the domestic remedies. It notes in particular that after the Supreme Court decision of May 5, 2008 ruling on the unconstitutionality motion filed by the Prosecutor’s Office and the complainants in the criminal case prosecuting those allegedly responsible for the acts of torture reported by the petitioner, the domestic courts would continue to prosecute the criminal case in the domestic jurisdiction and that a preliminary hearing had been convened for the month of July 2012. 26. The first issue to be clarified is which domestic remedies should be exhausted in the instant case. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the I/A Court HR”) has indicated that only remedies suitable for remedying the violations allegedly committed must be exhausted. Adequate remedies are those which: …are 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.3 27. In this regard, in the instant case it should be noted that the precedents established by the Commission recognize that whenever an offense prosecutable ex officio is committed, the State has the obligation to advance and promote the criminal process4 and that in such cases, this is the suitable route for clarifying the facts, judging those responsible, and establishing the respective criminal penalties, in addition to facilitating other forms of monetary reparations. The IACHR believes that the facts alleged in the instant case involve the alleged violation of fundamental rights such as the right to humane treatment, which are reflected in domestic legislation as offenses prosecutable ex officio, and thus it is this process, advanced by the State itself, which should be considered for purposes of determining the admissibility of the complaint. 28. In this regard, the IACHR has established that as a general rule a criminal investigation should be conducted promptly in order to protect the interests of the victim, preserve the evidence, and even safeguard the rights of any who may be considered suspect in the context of the investigation.5 For 3 I/A Court HR., Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras Case. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C, No. 4. 64. 4 Report No. 52/97, Case 11.218, Arges Sequeira Mangas, Nicaragua, 1997 IACHR Annual Report, paras. 96 and 97. See also Report No. 55/97, Case 11.137, Juan Carlos Abella, Argentina, para. 392 and Report No. 62/00, Case 11.727, Hernando Osorio Correa, Colombia, 2000 IACHR Annual Report, para. 24. 5 IACHR, Report No. 71/09, Petition 858-06, Massacre of Belén - Altavista, Colombia, August 5, 2009, para. 36.