54. Regarding the motion to review, as raised by the State, the Commission notes that it is a remedy that would be pursued against the decision denying the amparo claim filed by the family members to challenge the decision to “not bring criminal action” and, therefore, it is of a special or extraordinary nature. Additionally, the effect of this remedy, in the event that they had won, could have been to reopen the investigation. The Inter-American Court has held that even though all criminal investigations must fulfill several legal requirements, the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies must never lead to a halt or delay that would render international action in support of the defenseless victim ineffective.8 Moreover, the IACHR has held that while in some instances special or extraordinary appeals or remedies are suitable for addressing human rights violations, as a general rule, the only remedies that need be exhausted are those whose function, within the domestic legal system, is appropriate for providing protection to remedy an infringement of given legal right.9 55. Taking into consideration that as a general rule of thumb, an investigation into the alleged death of a person must be conducted promptly in order to protect the interests of the victims, preserve the evidence and even safeguard, as the case may be, the rights of everyone in the context of the investigation who may be suspect, the Commission considers that the procedural burden to keep the investigation open should not be shifted to the family members by compelling them to pursue remedies of an extraordinary nature, such as the motion for review, in order to assert their claim. The Commission notes that for the more than 10 years that the investigation has been open, the Office of the Public Prosecutor has had more than sufficient opportunity to investigate and clarify the facts and arrive at a final conclusion and that, additionally, the next-of-kin of Mrs. Ochoa actively took part over the course of the whole investigation challenging both the decision to “not bring criminal action” as well as other decisions of the prosecutorial authorities. Consequently, the motion for review is not a suitable remedy for the purposes of examining the admissibility of the instant case. 56. Accordingly, based on the foregoing explanation and given the profile of the instant case, the Inter-American Commission finds that the remedies provided for by Mexican legislation have been exhausted and rules that the petition under consideration does meet the requirements prescribed in Article 46 of the Convention. 2. Timeliness of the Petition 57. Pursuant to Article 46.1.b of the American Convention, in order for a petition to be admitted, it must be lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the alleged victim was notified of the final judgment exhausting domestic remedies. In the instant case, the IACHR received the petition regarding the alleged violation of the rights of Mrs. Digna Ochoa on November 2, 1999, after the alleged acts of assault were perpetrated against her and prior to her death. The Commission notes that during the processing of admissibility, both the State and the petitioners have been providing information on developments in the investigations. Consequently, the Commission deems that the requirement prescribed in Article 46.1.b of the Convention pertaining to the deadline for submission has been met. 3. Duplication and Res Judicata in International Proceedings 58. Nothing in the case file indicates that the subject of the petition is pending decision in another international settlement proceeding, or that it duplicates a petition already examined by this or any other international body. Therefore, the requirements of Articles 46.1.c and 47.d have been met. 4. Colorable Claim 8 IA/Court of HR, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Preliminary Objections. Judgment June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 93.. 9 IACHR, Report Nº 51/03, case 11.819, Christian Daniel Domínguez Domenchetti (Argentina), October 24, 2003, paragraph 45; IACHR, Report Nº 68/01 Case 12.117, Santos Soto Ramírez et al (Mexico) June 14, 2001, paragraph 14; IACHR, Report Nº 83/01 Case 11.581, Zulema Tarazona Arriate et al (Peru) October 10, 2001, 11