shall not be applicable when 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, 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 when there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. 49. In the instant case, the Commission notes that the State contends it has properly investigated the facts pertaining to the petition and that domestic remedies have not been exhausted because, after the amparo decision of August 19, 2011, a “motion for review” of judgment was available to the petitioners, which in the judgment of the State, constitutes a simple and accessible remedy that could have been pursued by the family members in order to challenge the amparo ruling and reopen the investigation. The petitioners, however, argue that the State has not diligently investigated the alleged attacks, which took place prior to the death of Mrs. Digna Ochoa and that remedies have been exhausted with regard to the investigation conducted into her death. 50. In view of the parties’ allegations, the IACHR must first clarify what domestic remedies must be exhausted in a case such as the instant one, in light of the legal precedents of the Inter-American system. According to precedents set by the Commission, whenever a alleged criminal offense is committed that is subject to ex officio prosecution, the State has the obligation to bring forward and further an investigation and that, in those instances, this is the suitable procedure to clarify the facts and, as the case may warrant, to bring those responsible to trial and establish the appropriate criminal sanction.6 Concretely, in cases such as this one, the Commission notes that the European Court has also held that authorities are obligated to investigate the circumstances in which deaths occur, particularly when a suicide or a homicide is involved.7 51. The IACHR notes that in the instant case, the State brought forward an investigation into the alleged abductions of and assaults on Mrs. Digna Ochoa, as well as into the circumstances of her death, and these incidents could entail violations of fundamental rights such as the right to life and humane treatment and, in domestic law, amount to criminal offenses subject to ex officio prosecution. Consequently, in the view of the Commission, independently of the findings reached by the investigating authority, this investigation was brought on the State’s own initiative, which must be considered for the purpose of determining the admissibility of the instant claim. 52. As reported by the parties, regarding the investigation into the alleged abductions of and assaults on Mrs. Digna Ochoa on August 9 and October 28, 1999, the IACHR notes that even though the State reported on several steps it took in a preliminary investigation upon learning of these crimes, in the course of the processing of admissibility, it has not reported on any further progress in the investigations and the possible link thereof to the subsequent death of Mrs. Digna Ochoa in the more than ten years that have elapsed since her death occurred and, therefore, said circumstances, solely for purposes of admissibility, would constitute prima facie evidence of unwarranted delay in the investigations into that count of the claim. 53. Moreover, as to the investigation conducted into the death of Mrs. Digna Ochoa, the Commission notes that there is no dispute between the parties that after the denial of the amparo claim brought by the family members, on August 19, 2011, the decision of the Office of the Public Prosecutor to “not bring criminal action” brought to an end the investigation, which had been furthered by the State, at the point in time when the case became res judicata. Taking into account that the investigation into the death of Mrs. Digna Ochoa was brought forward and furthered by the State and that it is closed, the Commission concludes that the prior exhaustion requirement has been met. 6 IACHR, Report No. 99/09, Petition 12.335, Gustavo Giraldo Villamizar Durán, Colombia, October 29, 2009, par. 33. Concretely, in the case of Masneva v. Ukraine, pertaining to the alleged death of Mr. Marnev as a result of a suicide, the Court determined that “the authorities had the procedural obligation to investigate the circumstances of Mr. Masnev, particularly, to determine whether a murder or a suicide had taken place.” Cfr. ECHR, Masneva v. Ukraine, no. 5952/07, § 52. 7 10