It is evident that the processing of the writs has lasted more than six years since the first proceedings in the case, in contravention of the provisions of Article 133 which defines the maximum duration as 3 years. A review of the proceedings shows that the delay is attributable to the Court dealing with the case because twice it incurred nullity because of procedural failings. The statement of the errors by both the prosecutor and the accuser neither justify nor contradict the foundation of the resolution which is being appealed, which has correctly applied procedural norms.14 72. With regard to the extinguishment of the criminal action, the Constitutional Court of Bolivia has indicated that when an organ of the administration of justice system fails to process a case with the necessary procedural and juridical guarantees and as a result of it the process exceeds the legal period during which time it should be resolved, the State loses its power to punish the case and should pronounce that the criminal action is extinguished. The purpose of the extinguishment for the Constitutional Court of Bolivia is to avoid possible violations of the rights of those involved in the proceedings, including legal certainty: [p]revent undue delay in the proceedings caused by the omission or lack of due diligence of the competent organ of the criminal system, may occasion injury to the defendant’s other rights, including his right to dignity and legal certainty, which may not be reparable (…) In accordance with this, when the administrative or judicial organ does not process a case with the diligence established by constitutional and legal order, or publishes unnecessary or unlawful resolutions or decrees, an unjustified delay to the case is occasioned, damaging the right of the defendant to the conclusion of proceedings within the time limit established by law; in these circumstances the State loses its power to legitimately punish, thus bringing about the extinguishment of criminal action (…)15 73. In the present case, the Commission considers that the petitioner has exhausted the ordinary remedies available under domestic law. The remedy which, according to the State, should have been exhausted is a constitutional action (Amparo Constitucional).16 The Commission observes firstly that this remedy is, by its nature, extraordinary, while the duty of the petitioners is, in principle, to interpose and exhaust all ordinary remedies. Secondly, the Commission observes that the State has not indicated to what extent the aforementioned extraordinary remedy would have been able to respond to, or remedy the violations of due process complained of by the petitioner. In this sense, the petitioner alleges that the criminal proceedings were affected by a series of irregularities and delays and the purpose of the aforementioned extraordinary remedy is not to remedy the suspected violations alleged by the petitioner. Therefore, having taken into account the jurisprudence established by the Constitutional Court of Bolivia quoted in the previous paragraph, the Commission observes scant prospect of success to be achieved by interposing the said remedy. 74. The adequacy of a civil or criminal action concerning the facts alleged on this petition is a matter that will be analyzed in the merits stage. 75. Therefore, the Commission considers that the petitioner has exhausted the remedies available under domestic law and therefore the requirement enshrined in Article 46(1)((a) of the Convention has been met from the date on which I.V. was notified of the Judgment concerning the extinguishment of criminal proceedings on September 13, 2006. 2. Deadline for presentation of petitions 76. Article 46(1) of the Convention states that for a petition to be admissible it must have been lodged within the period of six months from the date on which the party alleging violation of his First Criminal Court of the Superior Court of Justice of La Paz, Judgment 514/2006, dated August 23, 2006. Constitutional Court, Constitutional Writ 0079/2004-ECA, September 29, 2004. 16 See IACHR, Report No. 17/06, Admissibility, Sebastián Claus Furlan and Family (Argentina), March 2, 2006; IACHR, Report No. 5/02, Admissibility, Sergio Schiavina and María Teresa Schnak de Schiavini (Argentina), February 27, 2002; IACHR, Report No. 51/02, Admissibility, Janet Espinoza Feria et al. (Peru), October 2002. 14 15 12