43. The requirement of prior exhaustion applies when domestic remedies are available in practice within the national system, and would be adequate and effective in providing a remedy for the alleged violation. In this sense, Article 46(2) specifies that the requirement is not applicable when the domestic legislation does not afford due process for the protection of the right in question; or if the alleged victim did not have access to domestic remedies; or if there was unwarranted delay in reaching a final judgment in response to the invocation of those remedies. As indicated by Article 31 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, when a petitioner alleges one of these exceptions, it then falls to the State to demonstrate that domestic remedies have not been exhausted, unless that is clearly evident from the record. 44. In this context it is appropriate to clarify the remedies available under domestic law that should be exhausted in each particular case. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has indicated that only those remedies that provide appropriate remedy for the violations that are alleged to have taken place should be exhausted. As the Court observed: Adequate domestic 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. 7 45. In this case, the Petitioner argues that he has exhausted domestic remedies as there is no option for him to appeal. The Act under which he was convicted provides that charges under said Act must be heard in the High Court of Justice, which is the highest court in Suriname. Similarly, the Petitioner’s interlocutory challenges were also heard in the Court of Justice. The Petitioner complains that the non-operation of the Constitutional Court of Suriname made it impossible for him to challenge the constitutionality of the Act or the proceedings initiated against him thereunder. On the other hand, the State contends that the petitioner failed to exhaust domestic remedies, given that criminal proceedings were still pending and that there were other (civil) remedies that the petitioner could have invoked to challenge the application of the Act against him. In particular, the State contends that the Petitioner could have invoked Article 137 of the Suriname Constitution. In response, the Petitioner contends that only the Constitutional Court of Suriname has jurisdiction to act under this provision, an argument that remains unaddressed by the State. Further the State has not refuted the Petitioner’s allegation about the nonoperational status of the Constitutional Court. However, the State argues that in any event, the complaints of the Petitioner relating to the Act and the proceedings thereunder are outside of the jurisdiction or constitutional mandate of the Constitutional Court. 46. In the Commission's view, the State has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating the availability of appropriate, effective domestic remedies that the Petitioner has failed to exhaust. The Commission notes that the Petitioner's complaints relate to criminal proceedings, which are not, on the face of it, remediable by civil proceedings. In any event, the State has not essentially denied the Petitioner's claim that he lacked any domestic forum to appeal his conviction or to contest its constitutionality. In the light of these considerations, the Commission concludes that 7 I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C, No. 4, paragraph 64. 8